The effect of administration skills on Rorschach protocols.

Although the Rorschach is the most widely studied and used non self-report measure to assess personality, no empirical studies have been carried out to investigate what level of expertise is needed to properly collect valid Rorschach protocols. The aim of the current study was to explore, using a within-subject design, the effect of training on proficiency in administering the Rorschach, specifically a) what kind of errors are associated with different levels of training, and b) what level of expertise guarantees a sufficiently effective Rorschach administration. The second (T1), the fifth (T2) and the tenth (T3) Rorschach protocols collected by 50 licensed psychologists attending a Rorschach training course were examined to explore what kind of mistakes were made at the different stages of training. In the Response phase, examiners collected more simplistic protocols and made more errors at T1, while they showed satisfactory proficiency at T2. Regarding the Inquiry Phase, the most relevant finding was that at T1 examiners made both errors of omission and commission, while at T2 they no longer made errors of omission but they did make more errors of commission, likely as a temporary effect of the training. At T3 a sufficiently effective Rorschach administration was carried out. Findings suggest that a 100-h Rorschach training course and 10 administrations as practicum, each followed by individual feedback and group discussion, might be sufficient to guarantee sufficiently effective Rorschach administration skills.

Inter-rater Reliability and Construct Validity of the Lerner Defense Scale in Clinical and Non-clinical Groups.

The current study investigated the inter-rater reliability and the construct validity of the Rorschach Lerner Defense Scale (LDS). In particular, it aimed to explore the inter-rater reliability, analyzing the most frequent coding mistakes in an attempt to improve the coding guidelines, and to investigate the ability of the scale to distinguish between individuals with neurotic-level and borderline-level personality organization, according to the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual-2 (PDM-2), and non-clinical subjects. Eighty clinical subjects and 80 non-clinical ones participated in the study. Among the clinical subjects, 40 have borderline-level personality organization and 40 have neurotic-level personality organization. Non-clinical subjects were drawn from an archival dataset of non-clinical individuals who previously participated in a Rorschach normative study. The LDS showed substantial inter-rater reliability; however, guidelines could be improved, specifically with regard to the threshold for coding Devaluation and Idealization at level 1. Furthermore, more examples should be included in the manual about the coding of Projective Identification and Denial. The LDS distinguished borderline-level subjects from both the non-clinical and neurotic groups with regard to Devaluation and Projective Identification, with borderline-level personality organization subjects reporting higher scores than either of the two other groups. Only the Denial scale discriminated between the non-clinical and neurotic group, with the latter reporting higher scores of high-level Denial.

Mentalizing Makes Parenting Work: A Review about Parental Reflective Functioning and Clinical Interventions to Improve It.

In the last decade several studies have investigated the role of parental reflective functioning (RF), defined as the parental ability to understand his/her child's mental states, on the child's development. Herein, a narrative review on parental RF is presented aimed at (1) presenting an overview of the existing empirical studies, (2) pinpointing unrequited questions, and (3) identifying future research directions. Specifically, the current review focused on (a) the impact of parental RF on the quality of caregiving and the child's attachment security, (b) the effect of parental RF on the child's emotion regulation and the child's RF, (c) maternal RF in women with a history of neglect and abuse, (d) the efficacy of mentalization-based clinical interventions, and (e) the recently developed Parental Reflective Questionnaire. The following terms "maternal RF," "paternal RF," "parental RF," "parental mentalization," "maternal mentalization," and "paternal mentalization" were searched in titles, abstracts, and main texts using Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Next, a search in Mendeley was also conducted. Inclusion criteria comprised original articles if they refer to the RF Scale (Fonagy et al., 1998) and were published in an English language, peer-reviewed journal before July, 2016. According to exclusion criteria, dissertations, qualitative or theoretical papers, and chapters in books were not taken into account. The review includes 47 studies that, taken together, supported the notion that higher parental RF was associated with adequate caregiving and the child's attachment security, whereas low maternal RF was found in mothers whose children suffered from anxiety disorders, impairment in emotion regulation, and externalizing behaviors. In addition, higher parental RF was associated with better mentalizing abilities in children. However, unexpected findings have emerged from the most recent randomized controlled trials that tested the efficacy of mentalization-based interventions in high risk samples of mothers, raising questions about the suitability of the verbal measures in capturing the mentalizing processes at the root of the parental capacity to be adequately responsive to the child's emotional needs.