Editorial: Further evidence that projective techniques continue as popular clinical assessment tools in practice settings

ABSTRACT

Despite continuing criticism regarding the psychometric credibility of projective techniques, evident in the scholarly literature (e.g., Imuta et al., 2013;Lawrence et al., 2021;Ryan et al., 2019), mounting recent evidence indicates that projective tests are considered an integral part of acceptable methods used or applied in research studies (Eby, 2020;Piotrowski, 2022). Perhaps reflecting the acceptability and relevance of projective assessment, chapter coverage in recent texts on psychological assessment clearly depicts the importance of projective techniques in clinical and child psychology applied to the mental health evaluation process (Saklofske et al., 2013;Sellbom & Suhr, 2020;Verdon & Azoulay, 2020;Weiner & Kleiger, 2021;Wright, 2020;Yalof & Bram, 2021). All this bodes-well for research, but what about the status of projective testing in practice/applied settings, particularly as a foundation for forming a conceptual therapeutic framework in mental health treatment? Hence, the purpose of this commentary is to address this specific issue by examining recent test usage findings, based on empirical data, as reported by practitioners. Of particular interest are the findings of 2 recent dissertations regarding the use of projective tests by practicing psychologists. The first study surveyed a sample of 510 members of APA Division 12 (both clinical child and pediatric psychologists) on the use of drawings (H-T-P, DAP, KFDs) in assessment (Longest, 2006). The most interesting observation is that 25% of the practitioners responded to the survey. Such attention to drawings in clinical practice shows a continued professional interest in projective assessment (see Piotrowski, 2016). More recent data on the use of a variety of projective techniques by psychologists were reported in a dissertation on current assessment practices in the context as an aid in therapy (Hanigan, 2021). This study surveyed licensed psychologists in practice across a myriad of applied settings in the USA. Of the 293 respondents, 29% were engaged in assessment for 20+ hours/per week (this is a slight increase from survey data reported over the past 2 decades). In addition, 55% of these practitioners use at least one projective technique (45% don't use any projective measures). Overall, the continued presence of projective measures in the research literature, the introduction of a host of novel projective techniques in recent years, and contemporary survey data on test usage clearly confirm the fact that projective techniques remain a significant part of the assessment armamentarium of mental health professionals. The current pandemic has had a very detrimental impact on the assessment enterprise (Gicas et al., 2021;Krach et al., 2020), particularly with regard to the use of the Rorschach. This disengagement of personality assessment practice has been corroborated in an analysis of the recent mental health literature related to COVID-19 (Piotrowski & Watt, 2021).Hence, we must await the findings of future studies (post-COVID) before an accurate appraisal on the nature and extent of psychological testing (particularly projective techniques) can be determined (Krishnamurthy et al., 2022). But, for now, projective assessment appears alive and (somewhat well) in the field of mental health evaluation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)