Evidence to Correct Misperceptions About Rorschach Norms

Abstract

Possible factors affecting normative shifts in Rorschach data are considered, including (a) genuine changes in mental health over time, (b) alterations in the type of target sample under consideration, (c) evolving scoring rules, and (d) variations in test administration skills or context. I show that the Comprehensive System (CS) criteria for coding form quality have changed substantially over time. Building on the extensive research of others, I also show that CS data collected around the world from people tested outside of a clinical context look somewhat less healthy than Exner's reference sample of socially/vocationally functioning nonpatients but somewhat more healthy than Exner's reference sample of people starting outpatient psychotherapy. Furthermore, preliminary results from Exner's new nonpatient sample recruited using the same procedures as before reveals scores that are generally quite similar to the existing reference values. The assertion that CS norms overpathologize people is not supported.

Roots of the Rorschach controversy

“…In a number of studies, investigators have administered the Rorschach to relatively normal groups of children or adults and then compared the results with the CS normative data. For many critical CS scores, the results for the children and adults have differed markedly from the CS norms (Hamel et al, 2000;Shaffer et al, 1999;Wood et al, 2001aWood et al, , 2001b; but also see Meyer, 2001).…”

“…. .Q Of course, it would be an important matter if the bnon-patientQ samples in our review really did include psychiatric patients, as Meyer (2001) and Weiner et al (2003) have claimed. Specifically, the inclusion of psychiatric patients would partially explain why these five samples appeared pathological when compared with the CS norms.…”

“…Argument 1: The CS normative sample is babove averageQ in psychological functioning. To explain why apparently normal adults and children in the community appear psychopathological when compared with the CS norms, several Rorschach proponents have argued that the members of the CS adult normative sample enjoyed superior psychological functioning and were healthier than the general US nonpatient population (Hibbard, 2003;Meyer, 2001;Meyer & Archer, 2001;Weiner et al, 2003). According to this argument, because there are some nonpatient individuals in the community with poor mental health, the average results for nonpatients in general should be expected to look bsickQ compared with the CS norms.…”

“…Several articles by Rorschach advocates (e.g., Meyer, 2001;Weiner et al, 2003) have claimed that our review (Wood et al, 2001b) was seriously flawed because it included psychiatric patients among its supposedly bnon-patientQ samples. For example, Weiner et al (2003, p. 8) claimed that, bfive of the Wood et al samples included current or former psychiatric patients.…”

“…Why did Meyer (2001) and Weiner et al (2003) claim that these five samples included psychiatric patients when in fact they did not? Apparently these Rorschach proponents considered any participants who had ever been in psychotherapy to be bpsychiatric patients.Q Four of the five studies named by the proponents included some individuals who were or had been in therapy, just as Exner's normative sample did.…”