A Consideration of Challenges to Psychological Assessment Instruments Used in Forensic Settings: Rorschach As Exemplar

An examination of generalized anxiety disorder and dysthymia utilizing the Rorschach inkblot method

This study examined transdiagnostic features of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and dysthymia in an outpatient clinical sample. Fifteen patients who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD and twenty-one patients who met DSM-IV criteria for dysthymia but who did not have comorbid anxiety disorder were evaluated utilizing the Rorschach. Salient clinical variables were then compared. Results showed that patients with GAD scored significantly higher on variables related to cognitive agitation and a desire/need for external soothing. In addition, there was a trend for patients with GAD to produce higher scores on a measure of ruminative focus on negative aspects of the self. Thus, not surprisingly, GAD patients' experienced more distress than the dysthymic patients. The implications of these findings are discussed with regards to better understanding the shared and distinct features of GAD and dysthymia.

Rorschach score validation as a model for 21st-century personality assessment

Recent conceptual and methodological innovations have led to new strategies for documenting the construct validity of test scores, including performance-based test scores. These strategies have the potential to generate more definitive evidence regarding the validity of scores derived from the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) and help resolve some long-standing controversies regarding the clinical utility of the Rorschach. After discussing the unique challenges in studying the Rorschach and why research in this area is important given current trends in scientific and applied psychology, I offer 3 overarching principles to maximize the construct validity of RIM scores, arguing that (a) the method that provides RIM validation measures plays a key role in generating outcome predictions; (b) RIM variables should be linked with findings from neighboring subfields; and (c) rigorous RIM score validation includes both process-focused and outcome-focused assessments. I describe a 4-step strategy for optimal RIM score derivation (formulating hypotheses, delineating process links, generating outcome predictions, and establishing limiting conditions); and a 4-component template for RIM score validation (establishing basic psychometrics, documenting outcome-focused validity, assessing process-focused validity, and integrating outcome- and process-focused validity data). The proposed framework not only has the potential to enhance the validity and utility of the RIM, but might ultimately enable the RIM to become a model of test score validation for 21st-century personality assessment.

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.

When Homer nods: an examination of some systematic errors in Rorschach scholarship

Considerable evidence has demonstrated that many scientists attempt to avoid disconfirmation of a favored theory. This tendency sometimes characterizes the scholarship of both those who favor the Rorschach (Exner, 2000) method and those who find it seriously flawed. Psychologists who use the Rorschach impressionistically are not deterred by the literature demonstrating that this procedure has thus far shown little established validity. Those who criticize the Rorschach dismiss the objectivity of the American Psychological Association (APA) Blue Ribbon Panel, which concluded that the test has proven validity, and by implication, they also dismiss the APA peer review process that approved the panel report. In addition, they ignore over 400 published studies showing the Rorschach has acceptable validity when responses are scored objectively.

The status of the Rorschach in clinical and forensic practice: an official statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment

This statement is intended for psychologists, other mental health professionals, educators, attorneys, judges, and administrators. Its purpose is to present a summary of the issues and evidence concerning the Rorschach. This statement affirms that the Rorschach possesses reliability and validity similar to that of other generally accepted personality assessment instruments, and its responsible use in personality assessment is appropriate and justified.