Editorial

Abstract

This issue includes four articles. The first two articles are empirical research studies on the features of morbid responses in first responders (Hwang et al., 2023) and on the construct of Rorschach complexity (Meyer, 2023). The third article focuses on the clinical use of the Zulliger Test as a means of describing changes after therapy in a client with retrograde amnesia (Hammarström & Grønnerød, 2023). The fourth article (Kpassagou, 2023) describes the application of the Rorschach extended inquiry with a client from Togo.Each paper makes a unique contribution to the development of the field of projective assessment and will hopefully be of great interest to clinicians. The first paper, by Hwang and colleagues, demonstrates that Rorschach morbid responses capture various aspects of trauma-related imagery and that this imagery influences not only the Rorschach content but also other aspects of the formal coding. The second article, by Meyer, addresses an existing debate about the conceptual and practical implications of Rorschach complexity (see Fontan & Andronikof, 2021;Meyer et al., 2011). Meyer describes the rationale for measuring complexity and how this important variable helps identify the main source of variance between different Rorschach protocols. The other authors involved in this dispute have agreed to write a commentary on this article, which will appear in the next issue of the journal. The article by Hammarström and Grønnerød shows that, although the contents of the Zulliger Test superficially appears to be largely constant between pre-and posttreatment assessments, the structural features of the test indicate a profound change in the client. Finally, Kpassagou demonstrates the utility of discussing the client's Rorschach responses during an assessment in Togo, a country that lacks normative and validity-related data on the Rorschach. This particular approach to using the Rorschach Test highlights its usefulness even in contexts where conclusions based on quantitative results are less credible due to a lack of research on the test's properties.