Group Techniques for the Rorschach Test.

Abstract

THIS chapter makes available to us an important body of information relative to the application of the Group Rorschach Test and the Multiple-Choice Rorschach Test in a variety of testing situations. Dr. M. R. Harrower's paper suggests quite clearly the extent to which the Rorschach Test, as a group procedure, finds application in clinical, military, educational, personnel, and industrial settings. In addition she provides a critical review of the value and limitations not only of the Group Rorschach Test but also of the more controversial Multiple-Choice Rorschach Test.Just as there has been a trend in recent years toward the development of group psychotherapy as the need for such a service has greatly increased, so too the development and applications of the Rorschach Test or some modification for use with groups represent a growing conviction that there are many situations in which the employment of the Group Rorschach Test or the Multiple-Choice Rorschach Test is fully justified.

The Harrower Multiple-Choice Test as a Prognosticating Device for Independent Secondary School Admissions

“…In general, we would consider 40 percent "bad" responses a s a cut-off point below which poor adjustments m i g h t be expected. (3) Munro, in another variant of Group Rorschach (4), found that students at Sarah Lawrence College made comparable scores.…”

Application of projective techniques in personnel psychology since 1940.

“…Concise descriptions of the specific projective techniques discussed in this review may be found in the following sources: the Rorschach test: Taylor and Nevis, 1957;the Group Rorschach: Harrower, 1959; the Structured-Objective (S-O) Rorschach: Stone, 1958; the Multiple-Choice (M-C) Rorschach: Harrower, 1959; the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT): Roe, 1953; the Vocational Apperception Test (VAT): Goldstein, 1960; the Worthington Personal History (P-H): Spencer and Worthington, 1952; sentence completion tests: Taylor and Nevis, 1957; the Tomkins-Horn Picture Arrangement Test (PAT): Miner and Culver, 1955; the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration (P-F) Study: Anastasi, 1961;the Cornell Word Form: Weider, 1947;and the Hand Test: Bricklin, Piotrowski, and Wagner, 1962. Among the major problems facing investigators using projective techniques in personnel psychology are whether the test can identify a general personality pattern within a given occupation; whether such a pattern is similar to, or different from, patterns found in other occupations; and whether successful workers can be differentiated from unsuccessful workers on the basis of specific personality characteristics revealed in test performance. These and other problems have been studied using various projective techniques in the personnel area.…”

Objective scoring of projective techniques.

“…Associations to inkblots are seen as only one step removed from completely free association in the psychoanalytic session. Others (20,33) have shown how highly structured and completely objective multiplechoice methods can be applied to the study of individual differences in the perception of inkblots. And curiously enough, the same 10 inkblots are used throughout!…”

“…As Harrower (20) has pointed out, the highly structured multiplechoice versions of the Rorschach are no longer equivalent to the standard individual Rorschach except for the inkblots themselves. One could go a step further and question whether or not tests that have completely fixed response alternatives can even be considered projective techniques.…”