Evidence to correct misperceptions about Rorschach norms.

We systematically evaluated the peer-reviewed Rorschach validity literature for the 65 main variables in the popular Comprehensive System (CS). Across 53 meta-analyses examining variables against externally assessed criteria (e.g., observer ratings, psychiatric diagnosis), the mean validity was r = .27 (k = 770) as compared to r = .08 (k = 386) across 42 meta-analyses examining variables against introspectively assessed criteria (e.g., self-report). Using Hemphill's (2003) data-driven guidelines for interpreting the magnitude of assessment effect sizes with only externally assessed criteria, we found 13 variables had excellent support (r ≥ .33, p < .001; [Symbol: see text] FSN > 50), 17 had good support (r ≥ .21, p < .05, FSN ≥ 10), 10 had modest support (p < .05 and either r ≥ .21, FSN < 10, or r = .15-.20, FSN ≥ 10), 13 had little (p < .05 and either r = < .15 or FSN < 10) or no support (p > .05), and 12 had no construct-relevant validity studies. The variables with the strongest support were largely those that assess cognitive and perceptual processes (e.g., Perceptual-Thinking Index, Synthesized Response); those with the least support tended to be very rare (e.g., Color Projection) or some of the more recently developed scales (e.g., Egocentricity Index, Isolation Index). Our findings are less positive, more nuanced, and more inclusive than those reported in the CS test manual. We discuss study limitations and the implications for research and clinical practice, including the importance of using different methods in order to improve our understanding of people.

show abstract

Section: The Rorschach As a Psychological Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the comprehensive system.

Mihura¹,

Meyer²,

Dumitrascu³

et al. 2013

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

318

451

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a study of nonpatient adults, Shaffer and Erdberg (1999) obtained results for many CS variables that differed from the data in Exner's Comprehensive System Workbook (1995). These findings have resulted in a series of articles debating the CS norms and the risk of false positive identifications of psychopathology in clinical and forensic settings (Aronow, 2001;Garb, 2003;Garb, et al, 2002;Hibbard, 2003;Hunsley & Di Giulio, 2001;Lilienfeld et al, 2000;Meyer, 2001;Wood, Nezworski, Garb, & Lilienfeld, 2001a, 2001b. However, Exner has reported that he is now working on calculating CS norms for a new non-patient sample, using essentially the same design and exclusion criteria as in the original project.…”

Section: The Rorschach Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, if the Rorschach is used in a more focused way than is often the case it should be less time-consuming. 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.…”

Section: Implications For Clinical Psychotherapy Assessmentmentioning

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

“…Nonetheless, performance-based methods, previously defined as projective tests (e.g., the Rorschach Inkblot Method) are not used at all despite the wide range of empirical studies that consistently provide support for their cross-cultural psychometric properties and incremental validity (Exner 2003;Exner and Erdberg 2005;Meyer 2000Meyer , 2001Meyer , 2002Meyer and Viglione 2008;Weiner 2003). This commentary examines the potential utility of using more multi-method assessment tools in the study of adolescence, particularly performance based methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Invited Commentary: Applying Psychodynamic Developmental Assessment to Explore Mental Functioning in Adolescents

Czopp

2012

J Youth Adolescence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent publications in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence present a variety of topics exploring adolescents' mental functioning in the twenty first century. Conceptually, many of the articles address the intriguing, though rarely explicit, question of developmental continuities and change from adolescence to adulthood. Such investigations, which are particularly prominent in articles that discuss personality dispositions such as impulsivity or lack of empathy and their relationship to emotionally disturbed or maladaptive interpersonal behaviors, examine interactional effects of these dispositions within the personality-context matrix. From a methodological perspective, however, the major tools used for assessing personality dispositions are self-report inventories while performance-based methods, previously defined as projective tests, are not used at all despite the wide range of empirical studies that provide support for their psychometric properties. This commentary suggests that applying a theoretically based, multi-method assessment procedure in empirical research would be most fruitful for any study aimed at exploring mental functioning in adolescents. As an example, I would use the Rorschach Inkblot Method, currently being internationally considered as the most frequently applied personality test for assessing adolescents. Implications for research, practice and policy decisionmaking are discussed.

show abstract

Evidence to correct misperceptions about Rorschach norms.

Cited by 37 publications

References 34 publications

The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the comprehensive system.

The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the comprehensive system.

Rorschach Comprehensive Variables and Assessment for Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Invited Commentary: Applying Psychodynamic Developmental Assessment to Explore Mental Functioning in Adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About