Rorschach test

For the band, see Rorschach Test (band).

The first of the ten cards in the Rorschach inkblot test. The images themselves are only one component of the test, whose focus is the analysis of the perception of the images.

The Rorschach inkblot test (German pronunciation: [ʁoɐˈʃax]) is a method of psychological evaluation in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using, depending on the psychologist, intuitive insight, complex scientifically derived algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to try to examine the personality characteristics and emotional functioning of their patients. The Rorschach is currently the second most commonly used test in forensic assessment after the MMPI and is the second most widely used test by members of the Society for Personality Assessment. In surveys, 80% of clinical psychologists engaging in assessment services utilize the Rorschach, and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach the Rorschach. It has been employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorder and differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to admit openly to psychotic thinking.

Although the Exner Scoring System (developed since the 1960s) has addressed and often refuted many criticisms of the original testing system with an extensive body of research, some researchers have raised questions about the objectivity of psychologists administrating the test; 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.

The American Psychological Association prohibits the Rorschach images from widely disseminated as "Presumably, prior exposure to these blots would contaminate the validity" of any future tests and the potential for harm to result.

History

File:Hermann Rorschach.jpg

Hermann Rorschach created the Rorschach inkblot test in 1921.

Originally created by Hermann Rorschach in 1921, the scoring system was improved after his death by Samuel Beck, Bruno Klopfer and others. John E. Exner summarized some of these later developments in the comprehensive Exner 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 is very popular in the United States, while in Europe the textbook by Evald Bohm, which is closer to the original Rorschach system as well as more inspired by psychoanalysis, is often considered to be the standard reference.

Methods

There are ten official inkblots. Five inkblots are black ink on white paper. Two are black and red ink on white paper. Three are multicolored. After the individual has seen and responded to all the inkblots, the tester then gives them to him again one at a time to study. The test subject is asked to note where he sees what he originally saw and what makes it look like that. The blot can also be rotated. As the subject is examining the inkblots, the psychologist writes down everything the subject says or does, no matter how trivial.

Methods of interpretation differ. Rorschach scoring systems have been described as a system of pegs on which to hang one's knowledge of personality. The most widely used method in the United States is based on the work of John E. Exner.

In the Exner system, responses are scored with reference to their level of vagueness or synthesis of multiple images in the blot, the location of the response, which of a variety of determinants is used to produce the response (i.e., what makes the inkblot look like what it is said to resemble), the form quality of the response (to what extent a response is faithful to how the actual inkblot looks), the contents of the response (what the respondent actually sees in the blot), the degree of mental organizing activity that is involved in producing the response, and any illogical, incongruous, or incoherent aspects of responses. It has been reported that popular responses on the first card include bat, badge and coat of arms.

Using the scores for these categories, the examiner then performs a series of calculations producing a structural summary of the test data. The results of the structural summary are interpreted using existing research data on personality characteristics that have been demonstrated to be associated with different kinds of responses.

A common misconception of the Rorschach test is that its interpretation is based primarily on the contents of the response - what the examinee sees in the inkblot. In fact, the contents of the response are only a comparatively small portion of a broader cluster of variables that are used to interpret the Rorschach data.

Controversy

The Rorschach inkblot test is considered controversial by some researchers for several reasons. Some skeptics consider the Rorschach inkblot test pseudoscience, as several studies suggested that conclusions reached by test administrators in the 1950s were akin to cold reading.

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.

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 judgment 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. But in Exner's system, 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 (see pp. 227-234 in ). This conclusion was refuted in studies using large samples reported in 2002.

Validity

When interpreted as a projective test, results are thus 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.

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 (see Table 9.4 in ). 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" (pp. 249-250 in ). (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 it was found they have not been followed. Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are fairly well specified but extremely time-consuming to inexperienced examiners, and corners may be cut by a psychologist.

Population norms

Another area of controversy are the test's statistical norms. A great strength of Exner's system was thought to be the availability of 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". But they may have failed to account for norm changes in the population that may have been drifting in a pathological direction — in other words, that the Rorschach may be accurately reflecting increasing psychopathology in society. As described by Hibbard, personality and social psychologists have written extensively on increasing narcissism in society, and this phenomenon has been shown in other research. The index for difficulty in interpersonal relationships has been found to be related to divorce and separation, whose rates have also increased since Exner's original norms were established.

The accusation of "over-pathologising" has also been rebutted 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 especially controversial because it has been commonly used in court-ordered evaluations, as a major factor in assigning custody, granting or denying parole, and so on. 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 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". Despite the criticism of usage of the Roschach in the courts, out of 8,000 cases in which forensis 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.

Protection of test items

Supporters of the test argue that the inkblot images used on the actual test cards should be protected so that the respondent's answers are spontaneous. The argument is supported by the ethical principles of the American Psychological Association which require psychologists to "maintain the integrity and security of test materials". The official test is sold only to licensed professionals.

The inkblots were first made publicly available by William Poundstone in his 1983 book Big Secrets, which also described the method of administering the test and gave outlines of the ten official images. The images have since been leaked on to the internet.

While the Rorschach Society has claimed that the blots are copyrighted, they have been in the public domain in Hermann Rorschach's native Switzerland, since at least 1973 (50 years after his death) according to Swiss copyright law. They are also in the public domain under United States copyright law based on when they were first created and published (before 1923), as well as in countries with a copyright term of up to 70 years post mortem auctoris.

The ten inkblots

• 
  Plate 1
• 
  Plate 2
• 
  Plate 3
• 
  Plate 4
• 
  Plate 5
• 
  Plate 6
• 
  Plate 7
• 
  Plate 8
• 
  Plate 9
• 
  Plate 10

See also

• Holtzman Inkblot Test - a similar inkblot test designed to correct the limitations of the Rorschach
• Pareidolia
• Picture Arrangement Test
• Projective test
• Thematic Apperception Test

References

• "Rorschach technique" entry in the Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology
• The Skeptic's Dictionary article criticizing the test
• "Giving up Cherished Ideas: The Rorschach Ink Blot Test" by Robyn M. Dawes, IPT Journal, Fall 1991
• "presentation and promotion of the Rorschach method, concentrating on the way it has been practiced within the classical European tradition"

External links

• International Rorschach Society
• History of Inkblot Techniques
• The secret test blot set and all operational procedures (Does not pertain to Exner's Comprehensive System: Exner, J.E. (2002). The Rorschach: Basic Foundations and Principles of Interpretation: Volume 1. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.)
• "The Rorschach Inkblot Test, Fortune Tellers, and Cold Reading" from Skeptical Inquirer magazine : Jul 2003
• "What's Wrong with This Picture?" A Scientific American article questioning the effectiveness of projective testing
• Response to the Scientific American article by The Society for Personality Assessment.

_{Subscript text}