Considerations in collecting Rorschach reference data.

Recent Rorschach research with nonpatients has yielded reference data that differ in several respects from nonpatient normative data published for the Comprehensive System (Exner, 1995). Conclusions concerning the implications of these new findings are premature, however, pending careful consideration of appropriate guidelines for collecting Rorschach reference data. In proposing guidelines for future research of this kind, I note (a) that the relatively unstructured nature of Rorschach assessment may complicate obtaining useful data from nonpatient volunteers, (b) that normative studies should include various types of patient as well as nonpatient samples, and (c) that identification of psychological disturbance from Rorschach protocols may be guided more accurately by how closely a record resembles the records of patients with certain disturbances than by how much the record differs from the records of nonpatients.

Advancing the science of psychological assessment: the Rorschach Inkblot Method as exemplar.

This article comments on a series of 5 articles, concerning the utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM). Two of the articles provide extensive empirical evidence that the RIM has been standardized, normed, made reliable, and validated in ways that exemplify sound scientific principles for developing an assessment instrument. A 3rd article reports a meta-analysis, indicating that the RIM and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory have almost identical validity effect sizes, both large enough to warrant confidence in using these measures. The other 2 articles adduce sketchy data and incomplete literature reviews as a basis for questioning the psychometric soundness of Rorschach assessment. Unwarranted skepticism should not be given credence as an adequate platform from which to challenge abundant evidence that the RIM works very well for its intended purposes.

Making Rorschach interpretation as good as it can be.

This article delineates six guidelines for enhancing the quality and utility of interpretations derived from the Rorschach inkblot method. These include (a) using all of the available structural, thematic, and behavioral data in arriving at interpretations; (b) focusing interpretive statements primarily on personality processes and drawing clinical conclusions and recommendations secondarily on the basis of identified personality processes; (c) addressing interpretations to both personality strengths and personality weaknesses to attend equally to adaptive capacities and maladaptive tendencies; (d) formulating and conveying interpretations at appropriate levels of certainty to distinguish clearly between probable fact and possible conjecture; (e) pursuing and expressing both nomothetic and idiographic implications of interpretations to the fullest possible extent, recognizing that personality is best described by considering both how people resemble and how they differ from each other; and (f) grounding the implications of interpretations in each respondent's cultural context to take adequate account of the mediation of cultural relativism between personality characteristics and their adaptive consequences.

Using the Rorschach properly in practice and research.

Proper use of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) in practice and research requires (a) well-founded expectations concerning what the RIM should be expected to do, and (b) appropriate methods for examining its validity in achieving the purposes for which it is intended. The RIM is a personality-assessment instrument, and its validity should be judged from its substantial correlations with observed behaviors that are conceptually linked to personality processes. Knowledge about personality functioning gleaned from Rorschach data may contribute to diagnostic formulations, but associations between Rorschach indices and psychometrically shaky DSM diagnostic categories have little bearing on the utility of the instrument for achieving its intended purposes. Adequate conceptual formulation of this kind is as necessary as solid empirical verification in the development and use of psychological assessment instruments.

What the Rorschach can do for you: incremental validity in clinical applications.

Psychological assessment instruments vary in how much structure they provide and the extent to which their meaning and purpose are apparent. The Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) is a relatively unstructured instrument whereas the MMPI-2 is a relatively structured instrument: People respond to these two instruments at different levels of conscious awareness concerning the possible significance of their responses. Because of its relatively unstructured nature, the RIM is less susceptible than the MMPI-2 to impression management. This complementarity makes it possible for Rorschach findings to enrich clinical assessments, especially when efforts to fake good result in MMPI-2 protocols that provide little reliable information. There is solid conceptual basis in psychology for employing multi-method assessment, and clinical applications in which Rorschach data contribute to fuller or more accurate formulations than would otherwise be possible attest the incremental validity that can derive from including relatively unstructured measures in a test battery.

Early identification of schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia is a potentially disabling mental disorder that often runs a chronic or recurrent course and represents a major public health problem. Most forms of schizophrenia first manifest themselves in late adolescence and early adulthood. Accurate early diagnosis and prompt intervention can help to diminish the negative consequences of this disorder. This comprehensive review covers all aspects of early diagnosis of schizophrenic disorder in adolescents.

Current status of the Rorschach Inkblot Method.

The current scientific, clinical, and professional status of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) is reviewed with respect to its psychometric properties, the applied purposes it can be expected to serve, the extent of its use, and the nature of prevailing attitudes toward it. Available evidence indicates that the RIM is a psychometrically sound measuring instrument that provides valid assessments of personality characteristics and can facilitate differential diagnosis and treatment planning and evaluation. The RIM continues as in the past to be widely used by both clinicians and researchers. However, the esteem in which it is held by practitioners, who are generally agreed that clinical psychologists should be competent in Rorschach assessment, is not universally shared by academicians, many of whom presently question the future place of Rorschach training in graduate education.

Is the Rorschach welcome in the courtroom?

A survey of 7,934. recent federal and state court cases in which psychologists presented Rorschach testimony revealed only 6 in which the appropriateness of the Rorschach was challenged and just one in which the testimony was not admitted into evidence. There is accordingly good reason to believe that, despite occasionally voiced concerns to the contrary, the Rorschach is welcome in the courtroom.

The Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) is not a test: implications for theory and practice.

Although the Rorschach has traditionally been referred to as a "personality test," it does not measure how much personality people have. Because it does not measure anything, the Rorschach is not a test; rather, it is a method of generating data that describe personality functioning. Rorschach data can be interpreted from many different theoretical perspectives, but theory is not necessary to explain the utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Method. Viewing the Rorschach as a method promotes full use of the available data, both perceptual and thematic, to paint a comprehensive picture of personality structure and dynamics.

Clinical considerations in the conjoint use of the Rorschach and the MMPI.

Contemporary clinical and research findings concerning the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) indicate that (a) objectivity and subjectivity are relative and not categorical dimensions of these two instruments; (b) apparent contradictions between Rorschach and MMPI results are generative and not invalidating; (c) within limits, false negative findings are not cause for concern in the clinical application of Rorschach and MMPI variables; and (d) differences between the Rorschach and the MMPI in how they are structured and what they measure demonstrate considerable advantage in using them in complementary fashion to support clinical inferences.

Rorschach changes in long-term and short-term psychotherapy.

Over a period of several years, repeat Rorschach testing was done with two groups of patients receiving outpatient psychotherapy, a long-term group (n = 88) engaged in intensive, dynamically oriented psychotherapy and a short-term group (n = 88) involved in behavioral or gestalt therapy. Rorschach protocols were obtained at the beginning of the treatment and on three subsequent occasions, 1 year, 2 1/2 years, and 4 years later, when most of the long-term and all of the short-term patients had completed their therapy. The findings demonstrate generally beneficial effects of psychotherapy, greater change in long-term than in short-term therapy, and the validity of the Rorschach for measuring these effects and changes.

Developments in research in personality assessment.

Progress in personality research requires an adequate data analysis link between concepts of what people are like and observations of how they are likely to behave. Advances in computer technology have strengthened this link but also have made it necessary for investigators to be wary of lack of selectivity and trivialization in their research designs.

Distinguishing healthy from disturbed adolescent development.

Distinguishing healthy from disturbed adolescent development facilitates accurate diagnosis and timely intervention for troubled adolescents. This distinction needs to take account of (1) ample evidence that normative adolescent development is adaptive rather than tumultuous and (2) reliable indications that certain kinds of symptom formation signal emerging psychopathology rather than normative variations.

On competence and ethicality in psychodiagnostic assessment.

To function competently, psychodiagnosticians must have an accurate sense of what their tests can and cannot do. To function ethically, they must act accordingly--expressing only opinions that are consonant with the current status of validity data. Psychologists who extol tests as doing more than is commonly known they can or who denigrate them as doing less than is commonly known they can are behaving unethically.

Identifying schizophrenia in adolescents.

This article reviews the nature of the functioning impairments that constitute schizophrenic disorder and provides specific guidelines for identifying these impairments in clinical evaluations. Attention is paid to certain distinctive profiles of impairment in adolescent as opposed to adult schizophrenics and to differential diagnosis between emerging schizophrenia and other conditions with which it may share some symptoms. Illustrations are provided of aspects of the interview behavior and clinical history of young people that provide clues to such characteristics of schizophrenia as disordered thinking, inaccurate perception of reality, interpersonal ineptness, and inadequate control over ideas, affects, and behavior.

Conceptual and empirical perspectives on the Rorschach assessment of psychopathology.

Conceptual and empirical perspectives on the Rorschach assessment of psychopathology are described and placed in a complementary perspective that stresses the value of conceptual formulations and the necessity of empirical data. Empiricism without concepts fails to explain adequately why Rorschach assessment yields useful information; conceptualization without empirical support fails to document adequately the psychometric soundness of Rorschach inferences. Used in tandem, explanatory concepts and supportive data enhance the scientific stature and professional utility of Rorschach assessment.

The future of psychodiagnosis revisited.

Convergence among theoretical perspectives in clinical psychology during the last decade has moderated many earlier disputes concerning the worth and propriety of personality assessment. Survey data indicate that traditional psychodiagnostic methods continue to be widely used and taught. New directions in professional practice, especially in relation to health and forensic concerns, are providing increasing opportunities for clinical psychologists to find rewarding roles as expert diagnostic consultants.