The Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS) Psychometric Validity of Individual Variables

Differentiating unipolar and bipolar depression: Contribution of the Rorschach test (Comprehensive System)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to contribute to differential diagnoses of unipolar and bipolar depression using cognitive variables of the Rorschach test (Comprehensive System).

METHOD

One hundred forty one depressed inpatients (71 bipolar, 70 unipolar; mean age = 46, SD = 15.8; 64% women) previously evaluated and comparable regarding clinical characteristics of their illness (including current mood symptoms) were blindly tested using the Rorschach test (C.S.).

RESULTS

The cognitive profile of bipolar depressed patients was more impaired than the cognitive profile of unipolar depressed patients. Combining four cognitive specificities (tolerance to ambiguity, discrimination failure, difficulties in controlling ideational impulses, and impulsive or negligent processing) in a logistic regression model allows the identification of bipolarity with acceptable accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Some aspects of cognitive functioning, as assessed with the Rorschach test (CS), appear to be useful to capture some important cognitive specificities of bipolar depression and could contribute to differential diagnoses of mood disorders.

Why We Need a Formal Systematic Approach to Validating Psychological Tests: The Case of the Rorschach Comprehensive System

This article documents and discusses the importance of using a formal systematic approach to validating psychological tests. To illustrate, results are presented from a systematic review of the validity findings cited in the Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 2003) test manual, originally conducted during the manuscript review process for Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel's (2013) CS meta-analyses. Our review documents (a) the degree to which the CS test manual reports validity findings for each test variable, (b) whether these findings are publicly accessible or unpublished studies coordinated by the test developer, and (c) the presence and nature of data discrepancies between the CS test manual and the cited source. Implications are discussed for the CS in particular, the Rorschach more generally, and psychological tests more broadly. Notably, a history of intensive scrutiny of the Rorschach has resulted in more stringent standards applied to it, even though its scales have more published and supportive construct validity meta-analyses than any other psychological test. Calls are made for (a) a mechanism to correct data errors in the scientific literature, (b) guidelines for test developers' key unpublished studies, and (c) systematic reviews and meta-analyses to become standard practice for all psychological tests.

On Conducting Construct Validity Meta-Analyses for the Rorschach: A Reply to Tibon Czopp and Zeligman (2016)

We respond to Tibon Czopp and Zeligman's (2016) critique of our systematic reviews and meta-analyses of 65 Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS) variables published in Psychological Bulletin (2013). The authors endorsed our supportive findings but critiqued the same methodology when used for the 13 unsupported variables. Unfortunately, their commentary was based on significant misunderstandings of our meta-analytic method and results, such as thinking we used introspectively assessed criteria in classifying levels of support and reporting only a subset of our externally assessed criteria. We systematically address their arguments that our construct label and criterion variable choices were inaccurate and, therefore, meta-analytic validity for these 13 CS variables was artificially low. For example, the authors created new construct labels for these variables that they called "the customary CS interpretation," but did not describe their methodology nor provide evidence that their labels would result in better validity than ours. They cite studies they believe we should have included; we explain how these studies did not fit our inclusion criteria and that including them would have actually reduced the relevant CS variables' meta-analytic validity. Ultimately, criticisms alone cannot change meta-analytic support from negative to positive; Tibon Czopp and Zeligman would need to conduct their own construct validity meta-analyses.