Talk:Holtzman Inkblot Technique

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Holtzman Inkblot Technique.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Title[edit]

This article's title appears in violation of WP:NAME. Any special reason why we are not adhering to it? Garycompugeek (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it seems it is capitlaized everywhere which is the exception. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing to expand this article by adding historical information on Holtzman's concept, as well as providing information on how the inkblot test has effected and helped the illnesses. I would greatly enjoy feedback an help with this if possible. Thanks! Valencia4723 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The price is wrong[edit]

How on earth is the price of the test relevant to the article? That price could be in Australian or US or Canadian dollars (or some other country's dollar), and in any region where that currency is not used, that price is meaningless. 58.175.33.82 (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the cited source (a dictionary) mentions neither the price nor what it would include. --un4v41l48l3 (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the cost and insurance plan details, as they were unsourced, seemed irrelevant, and read like a semi-advertisement. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

description of scoring[edit]

The section states "Many different variables apply when scoring.", then moves onto a list. The text suggests it would be a list of variables applied in scoring, but in fact it appears to be a list of criteria required for a variable to be considered as something to be applied in scoring. Also, in the 'test standardization' section, it talks about correlations but never clarifies what variables these correlations exist between - correlation of scores between different test-takers' scores? I find it unclear how to interpret the sentence "The test correlations ranged from .36 for Popular and .81 for normal adults. " in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.169.205.124 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

In sources such as this, and this and this and this, the technique is clearly given three upper case letters. Why is this styling not also employed here? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holtzman inkblot technique. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108144141/http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/Holtzman-Inkblot-Test.html to http://www.kids-iq-tests.com/Holtzman-Inkblot-Test.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]