Zur Verwendung projektiver Verfahren in der Familienrechtspsychologie: ein Diskussionsbeitrag

Projektive Verfahren werden auch heute noch in der familienrechtspsychologischen Diagnostik eingesetzt. Erfahrungsgemäß lassen sich 3 unterschiedliche Anwendungsarten unterscheiden: a) als klassisch diagnostisches Instrument, b) als informelle Verhaltensprobe oder c) als Explorationshilfe bzw. Gesprächseinstieg. In der folgenden Übersicht werden diese 3 Anwendungsarten dargestellt sowie ihr Nutzen für die familienrechtspsychologische Diagnostik kritisch diskutiert. Hierfür wird zunächst ein Überblick über die empirische Fundierung der am meisten genutzten projektiven Verfahren (des Thematischen Apperzeptionstests und zeichnerische Verfahren allgemein) gegeben. Es wird dann diskutiert, ob die klassischen psychometrischen Gütekriterien auf projektive Verfahren anwendbar sind. Hinsichtlich der Verwendung projektiver Verfahren als informelle Verhaltensprobe wird auf mögliche Urteilsverzerrungen hingewiesen, insbesondere den „confirmation bias“, den Effekt der illusorischen Korrelation und den möglichen Einfluss irrelevanter Informationen auf den diagnostischen Prozess. Angesichts der potenziell negativen Auswirkungen auf die Validität der Diagnostik empfehlen wir, projektive Verfahren nicht in der Einzelfalldiagnostik einzusetzen, wenn keine direkten empirischen Belege für die Validität des spezifischen Verfahrens für die genutzte Auswertungsart und das zu diagnostizierende Konstrukt vorliegen.

Addressing Issues in the Development and Use of the Composite International Reference Values as Rorschach Norms for Adults

This article describes 3 studies evaluating normative reference data for the Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 2003, 2007), with a particular focus on the viability of the Composite International Reference Values (CIRVs) that were compiled from 21 adult studies by Meyer, Erdberg, and Shaffer (2007). Study 1 documented how the CIRV norms are virtually identical when organized into 3 groups differentiated by the quality of their data collection effort, including an optimal group of 4 samples that relied on multiple experienced examiners and provided ongoing quality control over administration and coding. Analyses also showed that relative to the group of more optimal samples, the group of less optimal samples did not produce more variability in summary scores within or across samples or lower interrater reliability for coding. Study 2 used the existing CS reference norms to generate T scores for the CIRV means and documented how the CS norms make other samples of healthy nonpatients look psychologically impaired in multiple domains. Study 3 documented with examples from 4 different countries how 2 sets of within-country local norms produced notably different results on some variables, which compromises the ability of local norms to be used instead of the CIRVs. Taken together, the 3 studies provide support for the use of CIRVs in clinical practice as norms that are generalizable across samples, settings, languages, and cultures and that account for the natural variability that is present when clinicians and researchers contend with the ambiguity contained in the standard CS reference materials concerning the proper ways to administer and code. We conclude by urging CS users to rely on the CIRVs when making clinical inferences and to adopt alternative methods of ensuring they are following cohesively standardized administration and coding guidelines.

Performance-Based Assessment in Schools

This article addresses a 2006 article by Hojnoski, Morrison, Brown, and Matthews on the use of performance-based measurement among school-based practitioners. Their results suggest that many of their survey respondents favor the use of this form of measurement. This line of research is important and addresses an important issue in current clinical practice. However, they offer a critique of this form of assessment, in response to which the author raises four issues. First, there is a difference between tests and techniques. Second, assessment tools do not make decisions or diagnoses; clinicians do. Third, actuarial prediction and clinical expertise are mutually enhancing. Last, the relationship between science and practice should be bidirectional and integrative. These points are discussed in terms of the utility and appropriateness of performance-based measurement tools and techniques for helping psychologists answer diagnostic, placement, and treatment questions in the school setting.