Criterion validity of objective and projective dependency tests: A meta-analytic assessment of behavioral prediction.

Bornstein, Robert F.

doi:10.1037/1040-3590.11.1.48

Cited by 106 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 106 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Dy scale is a 54-item rationally derived MMPI subscale which has shown good convergent and discriminant validity with respect to external indices of interpersonal dependency, including help-seeking, suggestibility, compliance, and interpersonal yielding (Birtchnell & Kennard, 1983;Bornstein, 1999;O'Neill & Bornstein, 1996). Detailed information regarding the construct validity of the MMPI Dy scale is provided by Birtchnell (1991), Birtchnell and Kennard (1983), and Finney (1965Finney ( , 1966.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dependency and suicidality in psychiatric inpatients

Bornstein

O'Neill

2000

J. Clin. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One hundred fifty‐two psychiatric inpatients (91 women and 61 men) completed widely used objective (i.e., self‐report) and projective measures of interpersonal dependency; scores on these measures were compared to two indices of suicidality derived from patients' chart records (i.e., number of past suicide attempts and physician judgments of suicidality at admission). High objective dependency scores were associated with high suicidality scores in women and men, even when level of depression was controlled for statistically. Projective dependency scores were unrelated to both suicidality indices. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 56: 463–473, 2000.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dependency and suicidality in psychiatric inpatients

Bornstein

O'Neill

2000

J. Clin. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

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

“…A meta-analysis by Meyer and Handler (1997) concluded that the Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale (RPRS) bears a well-established relationship to treatment outcome. Finally, a meta-analysis by Bornstein (1999;see also Bornstein, 1996) suggested that the Rorschach Oral Dependency Scale (ROD; Masling, Rabie, & Blondheim, 1967) is related to objective behaviors indicative of dependency.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Lilienfeld

Wood

Garb

2000

Psychol Sci Public Interest

607

391

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-AlthoughControversy has been no stranger to the field of personality assessment, and no issue in this field has been more controversial than the scientific status of projective techniques. Indeed, the novice reader attempting to make sense of the sprawling and bewilderingly complex literature on projective techniques is immediately confronted with a striking paradox. On the one hand, during the past four decades a litany of personality assessment researchers (e.g., Anastasi, 1982;Gittelman Klein, 1986;Dawes, 1994) have come forth to decry the reliability and validity of most projective techniques (see Lilienfeld, 1999). Jensen's (1965) famous quotation, although 35 years old, still captures the sentiments of many contemporary scientists toward the Rorschach Inkblot Test and numerous other projective techniques: ". . . the rate of scientific progress in clinical psychology might well be measured by the speed and thoroughness with which it gets over the Rorschach" (p. 238). On the other hand, clinicians in the United States and to a lesser extent those abroad continue to use projective techniques with great regularity, and many contend that these techniques are virtually indispensable to their daily practice (Watkins, Campbell, Neiberding, & Hallmark, 1995). The crux of this paradox was incisively summed up by Anastasi (1982), who observed that "Projective techniques present a curious discrepancy between research and practice. When evaluated as psychometric instruments, the large majority make a poor showing. Yet their popularity in clinical use continues unabated" (p. 564).Indeed, despite the sustained and often withering criticisms directed at projective techniques during the past several decades (Dawes, 1994;Lowenstein, 1987), numerous surveys demonstrate that such techniques continue to enjoy widespread popularity among clinicians. Durand, Blanchard, and Mindell (1988) reported that 49% of the directors of clinical psychology graduate programs and 65% of the directors of clinical psychology internships believed that formal training in projective techniques is important. Watkins et al. (1995) found that 5 projective techniques, including the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), were among the 10 instruments most frequently used by clinical psychologists. For example, 82% of clinical psychologists reported that they administered the Rorschach at least "occasionally" in their test batteries and 43% reported that they "frequently" or "always" administered it. There is some indication, however, that the popularity of certain projective techniques may be waning. In a recent survey of practicing clinicians, Piotrowski, Belter, and Keller (1998) reported that several projective techniques, including the Rorschach and TAT, have been abandoned by a sizeable minority of users. Some authors (e.g., Piotrowski et al., 1998; Piotrowski & Belter, 1989) have attributed the recent decline in the popularity of projective techniques to the advent of managed care, although at least some of this decline may al...

show abstract

Criterion validity of objective and projective dependency tests: A meta-analytic assessment of behavioral prediction.

Cited by 106 publications

References 106 publications

Dependency and suicidality in psychiatric inpatients

Dependency and suicidality in psychiatric inpatients

Rorschach Comprehensive Variables and Assessment for Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About