No abstract

Over a period of several years, repeat Rorschach testing was done with two groups of patients receiving outpatient psychotherapy, a long-term group (n = 88) engaged in intensive, dynamically oriented psychotherapy and a short-term group (n = 88) involved in behavioral or gestalt therapy. Rorschach protocols were obtained at the beginning of the treatment and on three subsequent occasions, 1 year, 2 1/2 years, and 4 years later, when most of the long-term and all of the short-term patients had completed their therapy. The findings demonstrate generally beneficial effects of psychotherapy, greater change in long-term than in short-term therapy, and the validity of the Rorschach for measuring these effects and changes.

This article comments on a series of 5 articles, concerning the utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM). Two of the articles provide extensive empirical evidence that the RIM has been standardized, normed, made reliable, and validated in ways that exemplify sound scientific principles for developing an assessment instrument. A 3rd article reports a meta-analysis, indicating that the RIM and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory have almost identical validity effect sizes, both large enough to warrant confidence in using these measures. The other 2 articles adduce sketchy data and incomplete literature reviews as a basis for questioning the psychometric soundness of Rorschach assessment. Unwarranted skepticism should not be given credence as an adequate platform from which to challenge abundant evidence that the RIM works very well for its intended purposes.

Current literature reflects a persistent inclination in some quarters to denigrate the Rorschach Inkblot Method as an invalid and useless instrument for assessing personality functioning. Although perhaps warranted to some extent in years past, such harsh criticism of the Rorschach runs counter to abundant contemporary data demonstrating its psychometric soundness and practical utility. This article offers some observations concerning the kinds of information that are necessary to validate assessment instruments and provides examples of lines of research that document Rorschach validity and utility for various purposes.

The current scientific, clinical, and professional status of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) is reviewed with respect to its psychometric properties, the applied purposes it can be expected to serve, the extent of its use, and the nature of prevailing attitudes toward it. Available evidence indicates that the RIM is a psychometrically sound measuring instrument that provides valid assessments of personality characteristics and can facilitate differential diagnosis and treatment planning and evaluation. The RIM continues as in the past to be widely used by both clinicians and researchers. However, the esteem in which it is held by practitioners, who are generally agreed that clinical psychologists should be competent in Rorschach assessment, is not universally shared by academicians, many of whom presently question the future place of Rorschach training in graduate education.