ABSTRACT
Three new scoring categories for the Wartegg Drawing Completion Test (WDCT) were introduced. Each of them permits to assess specific personality characteristics: the Evocative Character (EC) that is related to social adjustment; Form Quality (FQ) that is connected to reality testing ability and Affective Quality, (AQ) that is linked to general mood state. Inter-rater agreement and criterion validity of the new categories were investigated on a sample composed by healthy, anxious and psychotic individuals. For EC, FQ and AQ, results showed an adequate level of inter-rater agreement and a satisfactory capacity to discriminate among subjects, supporting their reliability and criterion validity. In particular, as expected, significant differences were found for each category among all groups, with higher mean scores for healthy subjects, medium for anxious and lower for psychotics (except for AQ category that showed significant differences only in the comparison between healthy and pathological subjects but not between anxious and psychotic ones). Possible approches to assess WDCT validity in future researches were discussed (AU)
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Personality Inventory/standards , Personality Tests/standards , Aptitude/physiology , Affect/physiology , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/psychology , Psychometrics/methods , Psychometrics/trends , Psychometrics/classification , Psychometrics/history , Affective Disorders, Psychotic/epidemiology , Affective Disorders, Psychotic/psychologyABSTRACT
Assessors from 3 continents worked together on a single multimethod case study. Their goal was to hold the client at the center and forefront of their attitudes and thinking as each assessor focused on a specific measure or group of measures. The adult client requested a neuropsychological assessment and completed a full battery of cognitive measures as well as the MMPI-2, the Rorschach, and the Wartegg. A basic tenet of collaborative/therapeutic assessment holds that the client is a full partner in the assessment process; he or she is also seen as the final arbiter of the usefulness of the ideas derived. With that in mind, the client worked with the lead assessor to create 6 questions she wished answered by the assessment. Feedback and discussion occurred in a number of ways: through discussion sessions with the lead assessor that included extended inquiry; individualized letters from the other assessors, each addressing her 6 questions; a summary letter from the lead assessor; and a metaphorical, therapeutic story that stressed key findings from the assessment. Results converged powerfully, with similar findings from each assessor. The client stated that she felt heard and understood in the process, even by individuals who she had never met personally.
