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.     

Comparative Diagnostic Judgments from the Rorschach and the MMPI

Three experienced psychologists made diagnostic judgments from the Rorschach, the MMPI, and gave an overall diagnostic impression for 50 male and 48 female patients. Judgment on the first test viewed was given before looking at the second test. Order of viewing the tests and sex of patient were counterbalanced. The results indicated (a) the judges consistently rated the tests on a given individual as agreeing on diagnostic impression significantly more often than disagreeing; (b) interjudge agreement was low but significant for the MMPI and overall impressions, not significant for the Rorschach impressions; (c) in cases of disagreement, there was a highly significant tendency for the Rorschach to be seen as indicating more pathology than the MMPI.     

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.     

Bulimia and object relations: MMPI and Rorschach variables

Rorschach and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) responses from persons vomiting to manage body weight and fat phobia were compared to those from a matched control group to determine the levels of personality structure. These responses were also contrasted with those of representative groups from normal and personality disordered populations. Findings were that the bulimic group's test protocols differed significantly from those of the control group, displaying evidence of serious cognitive slippage and dramatic, emotional and erratic personality structures arrested at the differentiation subphase of ego development. The clinical importance of timely developmental diagnosis and interventions designed to promote object constancy was discussed in light of these findings.     

Considerations in collecting Rorschach reference data

Recent Rorschach research with nonpatients has yielded reference data that differ in several respects from nonpatient normative data published for the Comprehensive System (Exner, 1995). Conclusions concerning the implications of these new findings are premature, however, pending careful consideration of appropriate guidelines for collecting Rorschach reference data. In proposing guidelines for future research of this kind, I note (a) that the relatively unstructured nature of Rorschach assessment may complicate obtaining useful data from nonpatient volunteers, (b) that normative studies should include various types of patient as well as nonpatient samples, and (c) that identification of psychological disturbance from Rorschach protocols may be guided more accurately by how closely a record resembles the records of patients with certain disturbances than by how much the record differs from the records of nonpatients.     

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.     

Rorschach Responses and Aggressive Characteristics of MMPI F>16 Scorers

Psychiatric patients with MMPI F>16 scores (E group) were matched with patients having similar diagnosis but F scores of 3-12 (C group) to assess personality characteristics of high F scorers. In Experiment I, E and C group Rorschachs showed no significant differences on formal scored characteristics. E group patients marked a significantly greater number of “obvious” than “subtle” MMPI items. In Experiment II, there was no significant E and C group difference in Rorschach aggressive content. Data from the hospital charts indicated that F>16 scorers had a significantly higher frequency of overt, actively directed anger and suicidal behavior plus a greater total incidence of hostile behavior across a variety of categories.     

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.     

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.     

Clinical Considerations in the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders with Veterans

This article addresses issues associated with the treatment of substance use disorders (SUD) in the U.S. veteran population. First, we examine special considerations regarding the assessment of alcohol and drug use in veterans. Second, we discuss current treatment approaches that have demonstrated efficacy in this population, with special consideration the issue of co-morbidity (especially SUD and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder). Third, we discuss two strategies to coordinate treatment of SUD: stepped care as a way to implement these treatments for SUD alone, and integrated treatment for SUD and co-morbid disorders. Finally, we discuss promising future directions for the treatment of SUD in the veteran population, including examination of mechanisms of behavior change, formal involvement of the veteran’s family in treatment, and use of existing datasets.     

Incremental validity of the Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale over the MMPI Ego Strength Scale and IQ

A recent meta-analysis found that the Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale (RPRS) had a strong ability to predict subsequent outcome (r = .44, N = 783; Meyer & Handler, 1997, this issue). However, that review did not directly address questions of incremental validity. This article focuses on the ability of the RPRS to predict outcome after taking into account other sources of data. Across studies that examined both the RPRS and the MMPI Ego Strength scale, the RPRS had a strong ability to predict outcome (r = .40, N = 187), whereas the MMPI scale did not (r = .02, N = 280). Nine studies examined the RPRS along with an intelligence test and allowed direct numerical estimates of incremental validity to be calculated. Across studies, the RPRS demonstrated strong incremental validity after controlling for intelligence (incremental r = .36, N = 358). It is clear that the Rorschach can make unique contributions to understanding clinically relevant processes in ways that self-reports or measured intelligence cannot. Contemporary Rorschach scales should continue to be evaluated for their distinctive and incremental contribution to clinical practice.