Projective Assessment and School Psychology: Contemporary Validity Issues and Implications for Practice

Abstract

Projective techniques continue to be widely used by school psychologists despite frequent criticisms of their use. This article reviews contemporary validity issues in the use of projective techniques with children and adolescents, including incremental validity, treatment validity, and problems associated with professional judgment and experience. A discussion of these issues and their implications for school-based projective assessment is provided, along with recommendations for the appropriate use of projective techniques with children and youth within a problemsolving framework.

School Psychologists and the Assessment of Childhood Internalizing Disorders

“…A less encouraging finding, however, was that the school psychologists in this sample rated projective techniques as 'somewhat important' in the assessment of internalizing disorders. Research suggests that projective techniques are typically neither useful nor necessary in the assessment of childhood internalizing disorders (Miller and Nickerson, 2007) and that there are a number of problems associated with their use, including limited incremental and treatment validity (Miller and Nickerson, 2006). Although the use of projective techniques by school psychologists for the assessment of social/emotional/behavioural problems appears to be decreasing (Shapiro and Heick, 2004), they continue to be used for a number of purposes which lack empirical support, including special education eligibility determination and intervention development (Hojnoski et al, 2006).…”

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error

“…Example: As suggested earlier, one of the most problematic trends in school psychology has been the continued uncritical use of certain projective methods, such as human figure drawing tests and many Rorschach Inkblot Test indices, in the absence of convincing support for their validity (Gresham, 1993;Hojnoski et al, 2006;Miller & Nickerson, 2006). Some have speculated that these methods owe their longevity to a combination of cognitive biases and "institutional inertia"-the tendency of longstanding clinical traditions to change slowly (Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2007).…”

Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts

“…Seitz et al, 1974) have never been supported by any scientific evidence (see APA, 2009). The incremental validity of projective techniques is generally poor (Garb et al, 2003;Miller & Nickerson, 2006;Ruscio, 2000). This is also true for the Rorschach, with little evidence that most Comprehensive System scores provide information beyond the data gathered by other psychological instruments (Wood et al, 2015).…”