Rorschach Norms for Inner City Children

Abstract

Rorschach data for 272 Black children are presented in age groups from 3 to 12. The Rorschach characteristics presented are F+%, A%, Fabulized Combinations, Perseverations, Color Naming, Rejections, Wholes, Details, Small Details (Dd), R, M, and P. Comparisons with Ames and Exner reveal a lower form accuracy level, and a lower percentage of Wholes, with a higher D level. Response rate, rate of development of the M response, rate of development of the P response, and of the Animal response are very similar to the other normative samples.

Rorschach Comprehensive System Data for 100 Nonpatient Children From the United States in Two Age Groups

“…The studies by Brault and Laveault (1992), Ihanus et al (1992), and Zucker et al (1992) were not included in Table 8 here. Each had obstacles to including them, for example, no CS variables, criterion-valid subject pool, non-CS administration procedures, and so on Studies by Krall et al (1983) and Cotugno (1995) were included, although they did not contain full CS data for their samples. Table 8 juxtaposes key available data from the CS, the Krall and Cotugno studies, and this study.…”

“…Prior to this research, a small number of journal articles presented Rorschach data for nonpatient children (Brault & Leveault, 1992;Cotugno, 1995;Ihanus, Keinon, & Vanhamaki, 1992;Krall et al, 1983;& Zucker, Lozinski, Bradley, & Doering, 1992.). In each, the nonpatient data were used for comparison to a criterion-valid, pathological sample that was the primary focus of the study.…”

Problems of the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach in Forensic Settings

“…Fur ther more, there have been a sub stan tial num ber of cri tiques re gard ing cross-cul tural use of the Ror schach and par tic u larly the lack of ap pro pri ate nor ma tive data (for summa ries of this lit er a ture, see Garb et al, in press;Wood & Lilienfeld, 1999). For ex am ple, Krall et al (1983) found that inner-city black chil dren dif fered from then-cur rent CS norms on 5 (50%) of 10 Ror schach vari ables. Glass, Bieber, & Tkachuk (1996) …”

Effect of social class of subjects on normative responses to TAT cards

“…Lower-class and middle-class adults and children also differ in aggregate scores on Rorschach. For instance, lower-class adults show a higher percentage of responses in which form is a determinant, and Black lower-class children show a lower form level and a higher W% (Exner, 1974;Fiedler & Stone, 1956;Krall et al, 1983).It should be noted that the differences reported in the literature have all been on rather crude measures (e.g., length of story, presence of a family figure, aggregate scores) and generally have not been interpreted in terms of the underlying personality differences that might have produced them. There is, however, a separate body of literature that suggests that there are differences in modal personality among individuals from various social classes.…”

“…Lower-class and middle-class adults and children also differ in aggregate scores on Rorschach. For instance, lower-class adults show a higher percentage of responses in which form is a determinant, and Black lower-class children show a lower form level and a higher W% (Exner, 1974;Fiedler & Stone, 1956;Krall et al, 1983).…”