Advancing the science of psychological assessment: The Rorschach Inkblot Method as exemplar.

Weiner, Irving B.

doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.4.423

Cited by 54 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 134 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Garb et al (2002) recommended that psychologists working in the fields of applied psychological investigation should only use CS scores that have been researched and found valid and reliable for the question under investigation. This is a recommendation in line with the reasoning by Weiner (1996Weiner ( , 2001 concerning the multidimensionality of the Rorschach and the need to calculate the validity of different parts of the method for various purposes. This is the point of departure for the present studies; the aim was to contribute to the study of the value of selected CS variables in assessment for psychodynamic psychotherapy.…”

Section: The Rorschach Controversymentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Acklin (1992) and Weiner (2000a) emphasised the importance of an integrative approach in the interpretation of Rorschach. However, in accordance with what Weiner (1996Weiner ( , 2001 contended, for an approach using both the structural and the qualitative aspects of the CS responses in psychotherapy assessment, the clinician should be guided by knowledge about which CS variables are valid for that specific purpose. For CS variables that are supported as indicators for dynamic psychotherapy, there is need to seek a deeper understanding about the value of systematic combinations of the variables into meaningful entities and greater knowledge about the integration of structural coding and qualitative aspects.…”

Section: Structural and Qualitative Analysis Of The Rorschachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are meta-analytic studies (Atkinson, Quarrington, Alp, & Cyr, 1986;Bornstein, 1999;Hiller, Rosenthal, Bornstein, Berry, & Brunell-Neulib, 1999;Parker, Hanson, & Hunsley, 1988), which are regarded as supporting the validity of the Rorschach. However, these studies have been criticised as being methodologically defective, and several researchers have engaged themselves in a controversy concerning the value of the analyses Garb, Florio, & Grove, 1998Hunsley & Bailey, 1999;Lilienfeld et al, 2000;Meyer & Archer, 2001;Parker, Hunsley, & Hanson, 1999;Rosenthal, Hiller, Bornstein, Berry, & Brunell-Neulieb, 2001;Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001;Weiner, 2001).…”

Section: The Rorschach Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Proponents and critics of the CS have also debated the temporal consistency and the interrater reliability of the CS (Acklin, McDowell, Verschell, & Chan, 2000;Costello, 1999;Ganellen, 2001;Garb et al, 2001;Hibbard, 2003;Hunsley & Bailey, 1999;Lilienfeld et al, 2000;McDowell & Acklin, 1996;Meyer, 1997aMeyer, , 1997bMeyer et al, 2002;Viglione, 1999;Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001;Weiner, 2001;Wood, Lilienfeld, Nezworski, & Garb, 2001;Wood, Nezworski, & Stejskal, 1996a, 1996bWood, Nezworski, & Stejskal, 1997). In research, the reliability of the CS variables is now mostly calculated by using the intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC, as recommended by among others Acklin et al (2000).…”

Section: The Rorschach Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Meyer (2001) pointed out, the clinician who chooses to include the Rorschach in a clinical evaluation of a patient should be able to articulate why this choice is motivated. The Rorschach is a multidimensional method, and as Weiner (1996Weiner ( , 2001) contended, individual scores should have their own validity for different purposes. As mentioned earlier, Garb et al (2002) recommended that only CS variables that have been researched and found valid for a specific question should be used in the applied fields of psychology.…”

Section: Implications For Clinical Psychotherapy Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Rorschach Comprehensive Variables and Assessment for Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Nygren¹

2005

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationally selected Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, , 1993Exner, , 2003 Rorschach variables and suitability for psychodynamic psychotherapy were investigated in four studies with different designs. The participants comprised three clinical samples (n = 52, 25, and 69) of patients applying for and/or selected for dynamic psychotherapy. With few exceptions the CS variables were the same in the studies, and in all the studies the Rorschach was independent of clinical ratings/assessments and/or selection of patients for treatment. The first study dealt with the relation between 17 rationally selected CS variables and suitability for psychotherapy as represented by ratings of Dynamic Capacity and Ego Strength and by selection of therapy applicants for psychotherapy. The second and third studies concerned CS score differences between groups of patients differing in suitability for dynamic psychotherapy. In the second study, differences for CS variables were predicted for three groups of dynamic psychotherapy patients with mixed diagnoses. In the third study, CS score differences between two groups, differing in suitability but similar in comprising personality disordered patients, were predicted and tested. In the fourth study, correlations were predicted between 18 pre-therapy CS variables and patient post-therapy satisfaction with therapy and also with therapist post-therapy ratings of their patients' suitability for dynamic therapy.For the four studies taken together, positive results were obtained for EA, FC, the D Score, Blends, Zf, F%, MQo, and AG. The results for m, SumT, WSUM6, X-%, S, and FrrF were negative, whereas the results for YFY, FD, COP, and PER were too weak to permit interpretation.The main limitation of the research in this thesis is the lack of psychometric data concerning the clinical ratings whereas the strength is the ecological validity. The results are positive for some of the CS variables selected, mainly concerning control and cognition but also touching upon emotional integration and interpersonal forcefulness. The usefulness of the CS in psychotherapy assessment may be enhanced if only those CS variables that are found valid for the purpose are used and general personality descriptions are avoided.

show abstract

Section: The Rorschach Controversymentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Structural and Qualitative Analysis Of The Rorschachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Rorschach Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Rorschach Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Clinical Psychotherapy Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Rorschach Comprehensive Variables and Assessment for Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Nygren¹

2005

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessment Psychology

Weiner¹

2003

Handbook of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychological assessment consists of translating observations of a person into inferences about the person's nature and how he or she is likely to behave in various situations. In more formal terms, assessment psychology is the field of behavioral science concerned with methods of identifying similarities and differences among people in their personal characteristics, functioning capacities, and action tendencies. Assessment methods are accordingly designed to identify what people are like and how they can be expected to conduct themselves, specifically with respect to their disposition to think, feel, and act in certain ways. This chapter begins by identifying the origins of assessment psychology and then traces the development of assessment methods for serving four purposes: the evaluation of intellectual ability, the identification of personality characteristics and psychopathology, the monitoring of neuropsychological functioning, and the measurement of aptitudes, achievement, and interests. The chapter concludes with comments concerning issues currently confronting assessment psychology and bearing on its future prospects.

show abstract

Education and Training in Psychological Assessment

Handler

2003

Handbook of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter concerns key issues in teaching and learning personality assessment, including a discussion of: (1) the difference between “testing” and “assessment”, (2) reasons for teaching and learning assessment, (3) methods of helping students to develop critical thinking skills in the interpretation and integration of data, (4) material on teaching students how to select appropriate assessment batteries, and (5) methods to help students overcome their natural resistance to the application of their assessment knowledge, lest they make errors and injure the patient/client. The chapter focuses on the experience of the student as he or she learns the material and on methods to make assessment more meaningful to the student and the patient/client. It also deals with ethical and political issues in teaching assessment, the influence of cultural diversity on assessment data, and assessment on internship. Several controversies are discussed, such as the preference for self‐report measures or projective measures and whether the academic programs or internship faculty should be primarily responsible for teaching assessment. The chapter concludes with a discussion of new and innovative issues in teaching personality assessment, use of computers and the Internet, therapeutic assessment, assessment of healthy aspects of personality, development of focused personality measures, and an expanded concept of intelligence to include personality variables.

show abstract

Advancing the science of psychological assessment: The Rorschach Inkblot Method as exemplar.

Cited by 54 publications

References 134 publications

Rorschach Comprehensive Variables and Assessment for Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Rorschach Comprehensive Variables and Assessment for Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Assessment Psychology

Education and Training in Psychological Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About