Misplaced Pages

Rorschach test

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.17.32.251 (talk) at 00:59, 6 January 2011 (→Method). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:59, 6 January 2011 by 24.17.32.251 (talk) (→Method)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "Rorschach Test" redirects here. For the band, see Rorschach Test (band).
123
The first of the ten cards in the Rorschach
test, with the occurrence of the most
statistically frequent details indicated.
The images themselves are only one
component of the test, whose focus is the
analysis of the perception of the images.
129%
218%
36%

The Rorschach test (Template:IPA-de; also known as the Rorschach inkblot test or simply the Inkblot test) is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex scientifically derived algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine a person's personality characteristics and emotional functioning. It has been employed to detect an underlying thought disorder, especially in cases where patients are reluctant to describe their thinking processes openly. The test is named after its creator, Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach.

In the 1960s, the Rorschach was the most widely used projective test. In a national survey in the U.S., the Rorschach was ranked eighth among psychological tests used in outpatient mental health facilities. It is the second most widely used test by members of the Society for Personality Assessment, and it is requested by psychiatrists in 25% of forensic assessment cases, usually in a battery of tests that often include the MMPI-2 and the MCMI-III. In surveys, the use of Rorschach ranges from a low of 20% by correctional psychologists to a high of 80% by clinical psychologists engaged in assessment services, and 80% of psychology graduate programs surveyed teach it.

Although the Exner Scoring System (developed since the 1960s) claims to have addressed and often refuted many criticisms of the original testing system with an extensive body of research, some researchers continue to raise questions. The areas of dispute include the objectivity of testers, inter-rater reliability, the verifiability and general validity of the test, bias of the test's pathology scales towards greater numbers of responses, the limited number of psychological conditions which it accurately diagnoses, the inability to replicate the test's norms, its use in court-ordered evaluations, and the proliferation of the ten inkblot images, potentially invalidating the test for those who have been exposed to them.

History

Hermann Rorschach created the Rorschach inkblot test in 1921.

Using interpretation of "ambiguous designs" to assess an individual's personality is an idea that goes back to Leonardo da Vinci and Botticelli. Interpretation of inkblots was central to a game from the late 19th century. Rorschach's, however, was the first systematic approach of this kind.

It has been suggested that Rorschach's use of inkblots may have been inspired by German doctor Justinus Kerner who, in 1857, had published a popular book of poems, each of which was inspired by an accidental inkblot. French psychologist Alfred Binet had also experimented with inkblots as a creativity test, and, after the turn of the century, psychological experiments where inkblots were utilized multiplied, with aims such as studying imagination and consciousness.

After studying 300 mental patients and 100 control subjects, in 1921 Rorschach wrote his book Psychodiagnostik, which was to form the basis of the inkblot test (after experimenting with several hundred inkblots, he selected a set of ten for their diagnostic value), but he died the following year. Although he had served as Vice President of the Swiss Psychoanalytic Society, Rorschach had difficulty in publishing the book and it attracted little attention when it first appeared.

In 1927, the newly-founded Hans Huber publishing house purchased Rorschach's book Psychodiagnostik from the inventory of Ernst Bircher. Huber has remained the publisher of the test and related book, with Rorschach a registered trademark of Swiss publisher Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG. The work has been described as "a densely written piece couched in dry, scientific terminology".

After Rorschach's death, the original test scoring system was improved by Samuel Beck, Bruno Klopfer and others. John E. Exner summarized some of these later developments in the comprehensive system, at the same time trying to make the scoring more statistically rigorous. Some systems are based on the psychoanalytic concept of object relations. The Exner system remains very popular in the United States, while in Europe other methods sometimes dominate, such as that described in the textbook by Evald Bohm, which is closer to the original Rorschach system and rooted more deeply in the original psychoanalysis principles.

ROSACH TEST IS A VERY GOOD THING

The ten inkblots

Below are the ten inkblots of the Rorschach test printed in Rorschach's Rorschach Test – Psychodiagnostic Plates, together with the most frequent responses for either the whole image or the most prominent details according to various authors.

Card Popular responses Comments
Beck: bat, butterfly, moth
Piotrowski: bat (53%), butterfly (29%)
Dana (France): butterfly (39%)
When seeing card I, subjects often inquire on how they should proceed, and questions on what they are allowed to do with the card (e.g. turning it) are not very significant. Being the first card, it can provide clues about how subjects tackle a new and stressful task. It is not, however, a card that is usually difficult for the subject to handle, having readily available popular responses.
Beck: two humans
Piotrowski: four-legged animal (34%, gray parts)
Dana (France): animal: dog, elephant, bear (50%, gray)
The red details of card II are often seen as blood, and are the most distinctive features. Responses to them can provide indications about how a subject is likely to manage feelings of anger or physical harm. This card can induce a variety of sexual responses.
Beck: two humans (gray)
Piotrowski: human figures (72%, gray)
Dana (France): human (76%, gray)
Card III is typically perceived to contain two humans involved in some interaction, and may provide information about how the subject relates with other people (specifically, response latency may reveal struggling social interactions).
Beck: animal hide, skin, rug
Piotrowski: animal skin, skin rug (41%)
Dana (France): animal skin (46%)
Card IV is notable for its dark color and its shading (posing difficulties for depressed subjects), and is generally perceived as a big and sometimes threatening figure; compounded with the common impression of the subject being in an inferior position ("looking up") to it, this serves to elicit a sense of authority. The human or animal content seen in the card is almost invariably classified as male rather than female, and the qualities expressed by the subject may indicate attitudes toward men and authority. Because of this Card IV is often called "The Father Card".
Beck: bat, butterfly, moth
Piotrowski: butterfly (48%), bat (40%)
Dana (France): butterfly (48%), bat (46%)
Card V is an easily elaborated card that is not usually perceived as threatening, and typically instigates a "change of pace" in the test, after the previous more challenging cards. Containing few features that generate concerns or complicate the elaboration, it is the easiest blot to generate a good quality response about.
Beck: animal hide, skin, rug
Piotrowski: animal skin, skin rug (41%)
Dana (France): animal skin (46%)
Texture is the dominant characteristic of card VI, which often elicits association related to interpersonal closeness; it is specifically a "sex card", its likely sexual percepts being reported more frequently than in any other card, even though other cards have a greater variety of commonly seen sexual contents.
Beck: human heads or faces (top)
Piotrowski: heads of women or children (27%, top)
Dana (France): human head (46%, top)
Card VII can be associated with femininity (the human figures commonly seeing in it being described as women or children), and function as a "mother card", where difficulties in responding may be related to concerns with the female figures in the subject's life. The center detail is relatively often (though not popularly) identified as a vagina, which make this card also relate to feminine sexuality in particular.
Beck: animal: not cat or dog (pink)
Piotrowski: four-legged animal (94%, pink)
Dana (France): four-legged animal (93%, pink)
People often express relief about card VIII, which lets them relax and respond effectively. Similar to card V, it represents a "change of pace"; however, the card introduces new elaboration difficulties, being complex and the first multi-colored card in the set. Therefore, people who find processing complex situations or emotional stimuli distressing or difficult may be uncomfortable with this card.
Beck: human (orange)
Piotrowski: none
Dana (France): none
Characteristic of card IX is indistinct form and diffuse, muted chromatic features, creating a general vagueness. There is only one popular response, and it is the least frequent of all cards. Having difficulty with processing this card may indicate trouble dealing with unstructured data, but aside from this there are few particular "pulls" typical of this card.
Beck: crab, lobster, spider (blue)
Piotrowski: crab, spider (37%, blue),
rabbit head (31%, light green),
caterpillars, worms, snakes (28%, deep green)
Dana (France): none
Card X is structurally similar to card VIII, but its uncertainty and complexity are reminiscent of card IX: people who find it difficult to deal with many concurrent stimuli may not particularly like this otherwise pleasant card. Being the last card, it may provide an opportunity for the subject to "sign out" by indicating what they feel their situation is like, or what they desire to know.

Prevalence

Globe icon.The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (September 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

United States

The Rorschach test is used almost exclusively by psychologists. In a survey done in the year 2000, 20% of correctional psychologists used the Rorschach while 80% used the MMPI. Forensic psychologists use the Rorschach 36% of the time. In custody cases, 23% of psychologists use the Rorschach to examine a child. Another survey found that 124 out of 161 (77%) of clinical psychologists engaging in assessment services utilize the Rorschach, and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach its use. Another study found that its use by clinical psychologists was only 43%, while it was used less than 24% of the time by school psychologists.

Controversy

Some skeptics consider the Rorschach inkblot test pseudoscience, as several studies suggested that conclusions reached by test administrators since the 1950s were akin to cold reading. In the 1959 edition of Mental Measurement Yearbook, Lee Cronbach (former President of the Psychometric Society and American Psychological Association) is quoted in a review: "The test has repeatedly failed as a prediction of practical criteria. There is nothing in the literature to encourage reliance on Rorschach interpretations." In addition, major reviewer Raymond J. McCall writes (p. 154): "Though tens of thousands of Rorschach tests have been administered by hundreds of trained professionals since that time (of a previous review), and while many relationships to personality dynamics and behavior have been hypothesized, the vast majority of these relationships have never been validated empirically [sic], despite the appearance of more than 2,000 publications about the test." A moratorium on its use was called for in 1999.

A 2003 report by Wood and colleagues had more mixed views: "More than 50 years of research have confirmed Lee J. Cronbach's (1970) final verdict: that some Rorschach scores, though falling woefully short of the claims made by proponents, nevertheless possess "validity greater than chance" (p. 636). "Its value as a measure of thought disorder in schizophrenia research is well accepted. It is also used regularly in research on dependency, and, less often, in studies on hostility and anxiety. Furthermore, substantial evidence justifies the use of the Rorschach as a clinical measure of intelligence and thought disorder."

Test materials

The basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless. Supporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes, but it is not clear how this occurs. Also, recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless, and that a patient typically responds to meaningful as well as ambiguous aspects of the blots. Reber (1985) describes the blots as merely ".. the vehicle for the interaction .." between client and therapist, concluding: ".. the usefulness of the Rorschach will depend upon the sensitivity, empathy and insightfulness of the tester totally independently of the Rorschach itself. An intense dialogue about the wallpaper or the rug would do as well provided that both parties believe."

Illusory and invisible correlations

In the 1960s, research by psychologists Loren and Jean Chapman showed that at least some of the apparent validity of the Rorschach was due to an illusion. At that time, the five signs most often interpreted as diagnostic of homosexuality were 1) buttocks and anuses; 2) feminine clothing; 3) male or female sex organs; 4) human figures without male or female features; and 5) human figures with both male and female features. The Chapmans surveyed 32 experienced testers about their use of the Rorschach to diagnose homosexuality. At this time homosexuality was regarded as a psychopathology, and the Rorschach was the most popular projective test. The testers reported that homosexual men had shown the five signs more frequently than heterosexuals. Despite these beliefs, analysis of the results showed that heterosexual men are just as likely to report these signs, so they are totally ineffective for identifying homosexuals. The five signs did, however, match the guesses students made about which imagery would be associated with homosexuality.

The Chapmans investigated the source of the testers' false confidence. In one experiment, students read through a stack of cards, each with a Rorschach blot, a sign and a pair of "conditions" (which might include homosexuality). The information on the cards was fictional, although subjects were told it came from case studies of real patients. The students reported that the five invalid signs were associated with homosexuality, even though the cards had been constructed so there was no association at all. The Chapmans repeated this experiment with another set of cards, in which the association was negative; the five signs were never reported by homosexuals. The students still reported seeing a strong positive correlation. These experiments showed that the testers' prejudices could result in them "seeing" non-existent relationships in the data. The Chapmans called this phenomenon "illusory correlation" and it has since been demonstrated in many other contexts.

A related phenomenon called "invisible correlation" applies when people fail to see a strong association between two events because it does not match their expectations. This was also found in clinicians' interpretations of the Rorschach. Homosexual men are more likely to see a monster on Card IV or a part-animal, part-human figure in Card V. Almost all of the experienced clinicians in the Chapmans' survey missed these valid signs. The Chapmans ran an experiment with fake Rorschach responses in which these valid signs were always associated with homosexuality. The subjects missed these perfect associations and instead reported that invalid signs, such as buttocks or feminine clothing, were better indicators.

In 1992, the psychologist Stuart Sutherland argued that these artificial experiments are easier than the real-world use of the Rorschach, and hence they probably underestimated the errors that testers were susceptible to. He described the continuing popularity of the Rorschach after the Chapmans' research as a "glaring example of irrationality among psychologists".

Tester projection

Some critics argue that the testing psychologist must also project onto the patterns. A possible example sometimes attributed to the psychologist's subjective judgement is that responses are coded (among many other things), for "Form Quality": in essence, whether the subject's response fits with how the blot actually looks. Superficially this might be considered a subjective judgment, depending on how the examiner has internalized the categories involved. But with the Exner system of scoring, much of the subjectivity is eliminated or reduced by use of frequency tables that indicate how often a particular response is given by the population in general. Another example is that the response "bra" was considered a "sex" response by male psychologists, but a "clothing" response by females. In Exner's system, however, such a response is always coded as "clothing" unless there is a clear sexual reference in the response.

Third parties could be used to avoid this problem, but the Rorschach's inter-rater reliability has been questioned. That is, in some studies the scores obtained by two independent scorers do not match with great consistency. This conclusion was challenged in studies using large samples reported in 2002.

Validity

When interpreted as a projective test, results are poorly verifiable. The Exner system of scoring (also known as the "Comprehensive System") is meant to address this, and has all but displaced many earlier (and less consistent) scoring systems. It makes heavy use of what factor (shading, color, outline, etc.) of the inkblot leads to each of the tested person's comments. Disagreements about test validity remain: while the Exner proposed a rigorous scoring system, latitude remained in the actual interpretation, and the clinician's write-up of the test record is still partly subjective. Reber (1985) comments ".. there is essentially no evidence whatsoever that the test has even a shred of validity."

Nevertheless, there is substantial research indicating the utility of the measure for a few scores. Several scores correlate well with general intelligence. Interestingly, one such scale is R, the total number of responses; this reveals the questionable side-effect that more intelligent people tend to be elevated on many pathology scales, since many scales do not correct for high R: if a subject gives twice as many responses overall, it is more likely that some of these will seem "pathological". Also correlated with intelligence are the scales for Organizational Activity, Complexity, Form Quality, and Human Figure responses. The same source reports that validity has also been shown for detecting such conditions as schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders; thought disorders; and personality disorders (including borderline personality disorder). There is some evidence that the Deviant Verbalizations scale relates to bipolar disorder. The authors conclude that "Otherwise, the Comprehensive System doesn't appear to bear a consistent relationship to psychological disorders or symptoms, personality characteristics, potential for violence, or such health problems as cancer". (Cancer is mentioned because a small minority of Rorschach enthusiasts have claimed the test can predict cancer.)

Reliability

It is also thought that the test's reliability can depend substantially on details of the testing procedure, such as where the tester and subject are seated, any introductory words, verbal and nonverbal responses to subjects' questions or comments, and how responses are recorded. Exner has published detailed instructions, but Wood et al. cites many court cases where these had not been followed. Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are fairly well specified but extremely time-consuming to inexperienced examiners, who may cut corners as a result.

US Courts have challenged the Rorschach as well. Jones v Apfel (1997) stated (quoting from Attorney's Textbook of Medicine) that Rorschach "results do not meet the requirements of standardization, reliability, or validity of clinical diagnostic tests, and interpretation thus is often controversial". In State ex rel H.H. (1999) where under cross examination Dr. Bogacki stated under oath "many psychologists do not believe much in the validity or effectiveness of the Rorschach test" and US v Battle (2001) ruled that the Rorschach "does not have an objective scoring system."

Population norms

This section may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (September 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Another controversial aspect of the test is its statistical norms. Exner's system was thought to possess normative scores for various populations. But, beginning in the mid-1990s others began to try to replicate or update these norms and failed. In particular, discrepancies seemed to focus on indices measuring narcissism, disordered thinking, and discomfort in close relationships. Lillenfeld and colleagues, who are critical of the Rorschach, have stated that this proves that the Rorschach tends to "overpathologise normals". Although Rorschach proponents, such as Hibbard, suggest that high rates of pathology detected by the Rorschach accurately reflect increasing psychopathology in society, the Rorschach also identifies half of all test-takers as possessing "distorted thinking", a false positive rate unexplained by current research.

The accusation of "over-pathologising" has also been considered by Meyer et al. (2007). They presented an international collaborative study of 4704 Rorschach protocols, obtained in 21 different samples, across 17 different countries, with only 2% showing significant elevations on the index of perceptual and thinking disorder, 12% elevated on indices of depression and hyper-vigilance and 13% elevated on persistent stress overload—all in line with expected frequencies among nonpatient populations.

Applications

The test is also controversial because of its common use in court-ordered evaluations. This controversy stems, in part, from the limitations of the Rorschach, with no additional data, in making official diagnoses from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Irving B. Weiner (co-developer with John Exner of the Comprehensive system) has stated that the Rorschach "is a measure of personality functioning, and it provides information concerning aspects of personality structure and dynamics that make people the kind of people they are. Sometimes such information about personality characteristics is helpful in arriving at a differential diagnosis, if the alternative diagnoses being considered have been well conceptualized with respect to specific or defining personality characteristics". In the vast majority of cases, anyway, the Rorschach test wasn't singled out but used as one of several in a battery of tests, and despite the criticism of usage of the Rorschach in the courts, out of 8,000 cases in which forensic psychologists used Rorschach-based testimony, the appropriateness of the instrument was challenged only six times, and the testimony was ruled inadmissible in only one of those cases. One study has found that use of the test in courts has increased by three times in the decade between 1996 and 2005, compared to the previous fifty years. Others however have found that its usage by forensic psychologists has decreased.

Protection of test items and ethics

Psychologists object to the publication of psychological test material out of concerns that a patient's test responses will be influenced ("primed") by previous exposure. The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that, "Publishing the questions and answers to any psychological test compromises its usefulness" and calls for "keeping psychological tests out of the public domain." The same statement quotes their president as saying, "The CPA's concern is not with the publication of the cards and responses to the Rorschach test per se, for which there is some controversy in the psychological literature and disagreement among experts, but with the larger issue of the publication and dissemination of psychological test content".

However, from a legal standpoint, the Rorschach test images have in fact been in the public domain for many years in most countries, particularly those with a copyright term of up to 70 years post mortem auctoris. They have been in the public domain in Hermann Rorschach's native Switzerland since at least 1992 (70 years after the author's death, or 50 years after the cut-off date of 1942), according to Swiss copyright law. They are also in the public domain under United States copyright law where all works published before 1923 are considered to be in the public domain.

This means that the Rorschach images may be used by anyone for any purpose. William Poundstone was, perhaps, first to make them public in his 1983 book Big Secrets, where he also described the method of administering the test.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has a code of ethics that supports "freedom of inquiry and expression" and helping "the public in developing informed judgments". It claims that its goals include "the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work", and it requires that psychologists "make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials". The APA has also raised concerns that the dissemination of test materials might impose "very concrete harm to the general public". It has not taken a position on publication of the Rorschach plates but noted "there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose". Exner and others have claimed that the Rorschach test is capable of detecting suicidality. A public statement by the British Psychological Society expresses similar concerns about psychological tests (without mentioning any test by name) and considers the "release of materials to unqualified individuals" to be misuse if it is against the wishes of the test publisher. In his book Ethics in psychology, Koocher (1998) notes that some believe "reprinting copies of the Rorschach plates ... and listing common responses represents a serious unethical act" for psychologists and is indicative of "questionable professional judgment". Other professional associations, such as the Italian Association of Strategic Psychotherapy, recommend that even information about the purpose of the test or any detail of its administration should be kept from the public, even though "cheating" the test is held to be practically impossible.

On September 9, 2008, Hogrefe attempted to claim copyright over the Rorschach ink blots during fillings of a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization against Ney Limonge of Brazil. These complaints were denied. Further complaints were sent to two other websites that contained information similar to the Rorschach test in May 2009 by legal firm Schluep and Degen of Switzerland.

Psychologists have sometimes refused to disclose tests and test data to courts when asked to do so by the parties citing ethical reasons; it is argued that such refusals may hinder full understanding of the process by the attorneys, and impede cross-examination of the experts. APA ethical standard 1.23(b) states that the psychologist has a responsibility to document processes in detail and of adequate quality to allow reasonable scrutiny by the court.

Controversy ensued in the psychological community in 2009 when the original Rorschach plates and research results on interpretations were published in the "Rorschach test" article on Misplaced Pages. Hogrefe & Huber Publishing, a German company that sells editions of the plates, called the publication "unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Misplaced Pages" and said it was investigating the possibility of legal action.

Dr. James Heilman, a Canadian emergency room physician involved in the debate, compared it to the publication of the eye test chart: though people are likewise free to memorize the eye chart before an eye test, its general usefulness as a diagnostic tool for eyesight has not diminished. For those opposed to exposure, publication of the inkblots is described as a "particularly painful development", given the tens of thousands of research papers which have, over many years, "tried to link a patient’s responses to certain psychological conditions." Controversy over Misplaced Pages's publication of the inkblots has resulted in the blots being published in other locations, such as The Guardian and The Globe And Mail.

Publication of the Rorschach images is also welcomed by critics who consider the test to be pseudoscience. Benjamin Radford, editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, stated that the Rorschach "has remained in use more out of tradition than good evidence" and was hopeful that publication of the test might finally hasten its demise.

See also

Notes

  1. Santo Di Nuovo, Maurizio Cuffaro (2004). Il Rorschach in pratica : strumenti per la psicologia clinica e l'ambito giuridico. Milano: F. Angeli. p. 147. ISBN 9788846454751.
  2. Fátima Miralles Sangro (1996). Rorschach : tablas de localización y calidad formal en una muestra española de 470 sujetos. Madrid: Universidad Pontifícia Comillas. p. 71. ISBN 9788487840920.
  3. Gacano & J. Reid Meloy 1994 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGacanoJ._Reid_Meloy1994 (help)
  4. ^ Chapman, Loren J.; Chapman, Jean (1982). "Test results are what you think they are". In Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul; Tversky, Amos (eds.). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 238–248. ISBN 0-521-28414-7Template:Inconsistent citations {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  5. ^ Gacano & J. Reid Meloy 1994, p. 4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGacanoJ._Reid_Meloy1994 (help)
  6. ^ edited by Carl B. Gacono, F. Barton Evans ; with Lynne A. Gacono, Nancy Kaser-Boyd. (2007). The handbook of forensic Rorschach psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. p. 80. ISBN 9780805858235. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Raynor, Peter; McIvor, Gill (2008). Developments in Social Work Offenders (Research Highlights in Social Work). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 138. ISBN 1-84310-538-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Weiner & Greene 2007, p. 402
  9. ^ Exner, John E. (2002). The Rorschach: Basic Foundations and Principles of Interpretation: Volume 1. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0471386723.
  10. ^ Scott O. Lilienfeld, James M- Wood and Howard N. Garb: What's wrong with this picture? Scientific American, May 2001
  11. Groth-Marnat 2003, p. 408
  12. Pichot, P. (1984). Centenary of the birth of Hermann Rorschach. (S. Rosenzweig & E. Schriber, Trans.). Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 591–596.
  13. Herman Rorschach, M.D at mhhe.com
  14. Gerald Goldstein & Michel Hersen, ed. (2000). Handbook of psychological assessment. Amsterdam: Pergamon Press. p. 437. ISBN 9780080436456.
  15. Kumar N, Verma, Romesh. Textbook Of Statistics, Psychology & Education. p. 225. ISBN 9788126114115.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. April 2, 1922: Rorschach Dies, Leaving a Blot on His Name at wired.com
  17. "About the Test". The International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods. Retrieved 2009-07-01.
  18. "Psychodiagnostics: A Diagnostic Test Based on Perception". Hogrefe, Cambridge. MA, ISBN 978-3-456-83024-7. 1998. Retrieved 2009-07-07.
  19. Acklin, M. W. & Oliveira-Berry, J. (1996). Return to the source: Rorschach’s Psychodiagnostics. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 427–433.
  20. Exner Jr., John E.: "Obituary: Samuel J. Beck (1896–1980)", "American Psychologist", 36(9)
  21. a cura di Franco Del Corno, Margherita Lang (1989). Psicologia clinica. Milano: F. Angeli. p. 302. ISBN 9788820498764. Nonostante il Sistema Comprensivo di J.E. Exner rappresenti ai nostri giorni il Metodo Rorschach più diffuso a livello mondiale, in Italia è ancora non molto utilizzato. Although J. E. Exner's Comprehensive Systems nowadays represents the most widely adopted method worldwide, it is not yet very widespread in Italy.
  22. Dana 2000, p. 329 "Although it has enormously expanded throughout Europe use of the RCS remains, as it where, somewhat confidential in many countries."
  23. Rorschach, Hermann (1927). Rorschach Test – Psychodiagnostic Plates. Hogrefe. ISBN 3-456-82605-2.
  24. Alvin G. Burstein, Sandra Loucks (1989). Rorschach's test: scoring and interpretation. New York: Hemisphere Pub. Corp. p. 72. ISBN 9780891167808.
  25. Piotrowski, Z. A. (1987). Perceptanalysis: The Rorschach Method Fundamentally Reworked, Expanded and Systematized. Psychology Press. p. 107. ISBN 9780805801026.
  26. Dana 2000, p. 338
  27. Weiner & Greene 2007, pp. 390–395
  28. Weiner 2003, pp. 102–109
  29. Hayden, Brian C. (1981). "Rorschach Cards IV and VII Revisited". Journal of Personality Assessment. 45 (3): 226–229. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4503_1. PMID 7252752. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  30. ^ Hughes; Gacono, Carl B.; Owen, Patrick F. (2007). "Current status of Rorschach assessment: implications for the school psychologist". Psychology in the Schools. 44 (3): 281. doi:10.1002/pits.20223. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  31. Butcher, James Neal (2009). Oxford Handbook of Personality Assessment (Oxford Library of Psychology). Oxford University Press, USA. p. 290. ISBN 0-19-536687-5.
  32. Camara; Nathan, Julie S.; Puente, Anthony E.; et al. (2000). "Psychological Test Usage: Implications in Professional Psychology". Professional Psychology:Research and Practice. 31: 131–154. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.31.2.141. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  33. Pieter J.D., Drenth (2003). ""Growing Anti-intellectualism in Europe: A Menace to Science" Annual Report 2003" (Document). ALLEA (All European Academies). PDFTemplate:Inconsistent citations {{cite document}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  34. James M. Wood, M. Teresa Nezworski, Scott O. Lilienfeld, & Howard N. Garb:The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading. Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Jul 2003.
  35. Alexander, Meredith (October 5, 2001). "Lee Cronbach, dead at 85". Stanford Report. Stanford University School of EducationTemplate:Inconsistent citations {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  36. Robyn M, Dawes (1991). "Giving up Cherished Ideas: The Rorschach Ink Blot Test". Institute for Psychological Therapies Journal. 3 (4)Template:Inconsistent citations {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  37. Garb HN (1999). "Call for a moratorium on the use of the Rorschach Inkblot Test in clinical and forensic settings". Assessment. 6 (4): 313–8. doi:10.1177/107319119900600402. PMID 10539978. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  38. Wood, James M.; Nezworski, M. Teresa; Garb, Howard N. (2003). "What's Right with the Rorschach?". The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. 2 (2)Template:Inconsistent citations {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  39. ^ Arthur S. Reber (1985). Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. Penguin Books. p. 653. ISBN 9780140510799.
  40. ^ Sutherland 2007, pp. 117–120
  41. ^ Plous 1993, pp. 164–166
  42. ^ Hardman 2009, p. 57
  43. ^ Fine 2006, pp. 66–70
  44. ^ Wood 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWood2003 (help)
  45. Wood 2003, pp. 227–234 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWood2003 (help)
  46. Meyer, G. J., Hilsenroth, M. J., Baxter, D., Exner J. E., Fowler, J. C., Piers, C. C.; Resnick, J. (2002) An examination of interrater reliability for scoring the Rorschach comprehensive system in eight data sets. Journal of Personality Assessment. 78(2), 219–274.
  47. Goldman 2000, p. 159
  48. Wood 2003, Table 9.4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWood2003 (help)
  49. Wood 2003, pp. 249–250 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWood2003 (help)
  50. Graves, P.L., Thomas, C.B. and Mead, L.A. (1991). "The Rorschach Interaction Scale as a potential predictor of cancer," Psychosomatic Medicine, 48, 549–563
  51. ^ Gacono, Carl B., F. Barton Evans (2007) "The Handbook of Forensic Rorschach Assessment" pg 83
  52. ^ Lillenfeld, S.O., Wood, J.M., Garb, H.N. "The scientific status of projective techniques, Psychological Science in the Public Interest v. 1, pp. 27–66, 2000". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  53. Hibbard, S. "A Critique of Lilienfeld et al.'s (2000) The Scientific status of Projective Techniques, Journal of Personality Assessment v. 80, pp. 260–271, 2003". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  54. Rorschach Test: Discredited But Still Controversial. July 31, 2009
  55. Meyer, G.J., Erdberg, P., & Shaffer, T.W. "Toward international normative reference data for the Comprehensive System, Journal of Personality Assessment v. 89(S1), S201–S206, 2007". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  56. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC.
  57. Weiner, Irving B. (1999). What the Rorschach Can do for you: Incremental validity in clinical applications. Assessment 6. pp. 327–338.
  58. Garb HN, Wood JM, Lilienfeld SO, Nezworski MT (2005). "Roots of the Rorschach controversy". Clin Psychol Rev. 25 (1): 97–118. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.09.002. PMID 15596082. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  59. "Canadian Psychological Association Position on Publication and Dissemination of Psychological Tests" (PDF). August 4, 2009. Retrieved 2010-07-08. Publishing the questions and answers to any psychological test compromises its usefulness. {{cite web}}: Text "publisher - Canadian Psychological Association" ignored (help)
  60. "Copyright Durations Worldwide - EU Copyright". Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
  61. "Copyrights – Terms of Protection". Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
  62. Carol Forsloff (30 July 2009). "Rorschach Personality Test: Did Misplaced Pages Leak a 'Cheat Sheet'". Digital Journal.
  63. Noam Cohen (28 July 2009). "Has Misplaced Pages Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? Analyze That". New York Times. Because the Rorschach plates were created nearly 90 years ago, they have lost their copyright protection in the United States.
  64. "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States". Cornell Copyright Information Center. 1 January 2009.
  65. "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct". American Psychological Association. 2003-06-01. Retrieved 2009-06-23.
  66. "Statement on the Disclosure of Test Data". American Psychological Association. February 1996. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
  67. Exner, J.E., & Wylie, J. (1977). Some Rorschach data concerning suicide. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41(4), 339–348.
  68. Viglione, D. (1999). A review of recent research addressing the utility of the Rorschach. Psychological Assessment, 11 (3), 251–265.
  69. Fowler, J. C., Piers, C., Hilsenroth, M. J., Holdwick, D. J., & Padawer, J. R. The Rorschach suicide constellation: Assessing various degrees of lethality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76 (2), 333–351.
  70. "Statement on the Conduct of Psychologists providing Expert Psychometric Evidence to Courts and Lawyers". The British Psychological Society. 2007-10-15. Retrieved 2009-06-23.
  71. Koocher, Gerald P.; Keith-Spielgel, Patricia (1998). Ethics in psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 159–160. ISBN 9780195092011.
  72. "Rorschach Test". Associazione Italiana di Psicoterapia Strategica Integrata. 21 July 2009. Retrieved 2009-08-29. Infatti il Rorschach porta con sé (dovrebbe portare) il riserbo assoluto su come si somministra, sul suo significato generale e su quello delle tavole in particolare. Tuttavia, al contrario di quanto si possa credere, "mentire" al Rorschach è praticamente impossibile {{cite web}}: Text "Rorschach test" ignored (help)
  73. "WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2008-1206". Retrieved Oct 15, 2009.
  74. "extra.listverse.com" (PDF).
  75. "Online Rorschach Test: Legal Threats".
  76. Paul R. Lees-Haley, John C. Courtney (2000). "Are Psychologists Hiding Evidence? - A Need for Reform". Claims magazine. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  77. ^ A Rorschach Cheat Sheet on Misplaced Pages?, The New York Times, July 28, 2009
  78. Ian Simple (29 July 2009). "Testing times for Misplaced Pages after doctor posts secrets of the Rorschach inkblots". The Guardian.
  79. Patrick White (31 July 2009). "Rorschach and Misplaced Pages: The battle of the inkblots". The Globe And Mail.(registration required)
  80. Radford, Benjamin (2009-07-31). "Rorschach Test: Discredited But Still Controversial". Live Science. Imaginova Corp. Retrieved 2009-09-01. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

References

External links

Categories:
Rorschach test Add topic