Roots of the Rorschach controversy

Abstract

The controversy surrounding the Rorschach is updated, and an analysis of its dynamics is offered. Results on normative data and validity are reviewed, followed by a summary of, and rebuttal to, arguments made by Rorschach advocates. We argue that the current controversy can be traced, at least in part, to two unwarranted beliefs. First is the belief that informal impressions and popularity provide dependable evidence for evaluating validity. Second is the belief that Rorschach scores with low individual validity are likely to yield much higher levels of validity if they are interpreted in combination with each other, or with other sources of information, by experts. After presenting historical background information, we show how several arguments made recently in defense of the test reflect these two beliefs, even though they are contradicted by research findings. We conclude that a variety of other divisive conflicts in clinical psychology are related to the inappropriate weight placed on informal and unsystematic impressions relative to systematic research.

Explicit Rejection of an Implicit Dichotomy: Integrating Two Approaches to Assessing Dependency

“…ROD scores have been linked to relevant types of psychopathology such as depression (O'Neill & Bornstein, 1991) and alcoholism (Bertrand & Masling, 1969). It is worth noting that the most vocal Rorschach critics have written favorably about the properties of the ROD and the research programs that have examined it (Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld, & Nezworski, 2005;Hunsley & Bailey, 2001). Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 15:08 13 October 2014…”

“…Recently, increasingly popular indirect measures are as varied as priming techniques, IAT-based procedures, and Rorschach indices. In dependency research, the ROD has garnered sufficient empirical support to be considered a legitimate indirect measure (Bornstein, 1996a;Garb et al, 2005;Hunsley & Bailey, 2001), but similar scales are not available to investigate other personality constructs of interest. Therefore, although dependency researchers have demonstrated the usefulness of conducting studies using a combination of self-report and indirect measures, that momentum is not necessarily generalizable to other personality constructs.…”

Current Assessment Practice, Personality Measurement, and Rorschach Usage by Psychologists

“…When used effectively, assessment can establish the foundation for diagnosis and treatment planning (Butcher, 2002;Handler & Meyer, 1998), support beneficial psychotherapy outcomes (Appelbaum, 1977), and be therapeutic in and of itself (Finn, 1996a(Finn, , 1996bFinn & Tonsager, 1992;Fischer, 2000). Within the broad field of psychological assessment, use of the Rorschach (Exner, 2003) in personality assessment has been an area of fervent debate (Exner, 2003;Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld, & Nezworski, 2005;Viglione, 1999;Weiner, 2001;Widiger, 2001). Three major meta-analyses have examined the psychometric properties of the Rorschach (Atkinson, 1986;Hiller, Rosenthal, Bornstein, Berry, & Brunell-Neuleib, 1999;Parker, Hanson, & Hunsley, 1988).…”

A Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature on Self-Blame, Guilt, and Shame

“…De Tychey and Dollander appear to have begun with a quantitative approach and switched to a qualitative content analysis when the researchers realized the data lacked statistical power. It is also unclear how De Tychey and Dollander transformed their data, and the study utilized the Rorschach test, a controversial assessment instrument (Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld, & Nezworski, 2005;Garb, Wood, Nezworski, Grove, & Stejskal, 2001;Hiller, Rosenthal, Bornstein, Berry, & Brunell-Neuleib, 1999;Parker, Hanson, & Hunsley, 1988). Table 4 summarizes the mixed method study and quantitative studies.…”