On Empty Bathtubs: A Reply to Meehl

In the present state of ambiguity, negative studies of the validity of psychodiagnostic tests can easily be generated. But such studies throw little light upon the capacities of the tests and are confounded by the utilization of clinical interpretations. It would be most advisable to deal first with the central problems: the need for an integrated theory delineating tests in terms of the areas of optimum assessment and levels tapped; and, the development of realistic expectations on the part of clinicians. The studies frequently cited as throwing question upon the validity of projective tools are rejected on three grounds: the unrealistic wording of the hypotheses (i.e., are these tests valid or invalid, rather than under what circumstances and in what areas are the tests valid); the failure to consider the populations and the background experience of the clinician; and the methodological weaknesses in the designs of the studies. While the author admits that in the long run Meehl may turn out to be correct in suggesting that projective techniques have little value, at the present time Meehl's case for such a conclusion seems weak and should not serve as a deterrent for further investigations and proper utilization of projective techniques.