Talk:Rorschach test: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
Many citation here, don't follow the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] the right way. You should cite the book, not only one of the autors surnames, the year and the page. Many information here is not verifiable and could be removed! [[User:EternamenteAprendiz|EternamenteAprendiz]] ([[User talk:EternamenteAprendiz|talk]]) 23:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC) |
Many citation here, don't follow the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] the right way. You should cite the book, not only one of the autors surnames, the year and the page. Many information here is not verifiable and could be removed! [[User:EternamenteAprendiz|EternamenteAprendiz]] ([[User talk:EternamenteAprendiz|talk]]) 23:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{ |
{{Ref-Section}} |
Revision as of 02:28, 22 June 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rorschach test article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Rorschach and measure of perception
Can anyone explain why the Rorschach test has relevance to perception? There are more senses than just visual. --96.244.248.77 (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- What, just because it doesn't cover every type of perception it's not relevant? Is a history textbook not relevant to history because it doesn't contain every event that has ever happened?
- The Rorschach test uses perception to make observations of an examinee. It's not a test of perception itself. Crcarlin (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
BruceGrubb's edit
I reverted BruceGrubb's edit from May 15th for two reasons. First, it was poorly worded... I'm not sure what he was trying to convey by "author" and "publisher." Second, it was poorly cited and the one citation it had was from the 50s. The Rorschach has come pretty far in the past half-century.
I appreciate BruceGrubb's contribution and am not trying to shut him down. I'd definitely encourage him to try to reword his edit with more (and more current) citations and try again.
Here's his original text:
Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are fairly well specified but extremely time-consuming leaving them very subject to the author's style and the publisher to the quality of the instructions (such as was noted with one of Bohm's textbooks in the 1950s[1]) as well as clinic workers (which would include examiners) being encouraged to cut corners
- (.. just for the record, could you sign your comment, Crcarlin? Not sure why it failed to autosign. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC))
- Here is the original text I was trying to fix:
Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are fairly well specified but extremely time-consuming to inexperienced examiners, who may cut corners as a result.[citation needed]
- The Journal of personality assessment's review of the textbook in question notes problems with "uncommonly stiff and pedantic version of Bohm's free-flowing style" and "the publisher's unfortunate decision to cut corners and delete important material" To use terms from my own field of anthropology some authors writing styles are more suited to explanation rather than explication and when publishers change that style unintended results happen.
- Right, but that's an ancient analysis of an even more ancient textbook :) Would you talk about the reliability of cars based on reliability problems documented based on the Model T?
- It is even more problematic when in an effort to cut costs (ie cut corners) a publisher deletes important material on top of changing said style.
- Sure the wording wasn't the best in the world but it is what I had to work with and this is the closet thing that actually used "cutting corners" in the text and it was certainly better than the no reference we originally had.
- As far "The Rorschach has come pretty far in the past half-century" goes one only have to read Bornstein, Robert F. Joseph M. Masling (2005) Scoring the Rorschach: Seven Validated Systems Lawrence Erlbaum Associates to watch that idea do a major crash and burn. There is no "The Rorschach" but rather several methods of using the cards and some of them such as Klopfer's Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale pg 22-46 and Masling, Raie, and Blondhein's 1967 ROD scale (pg 114-135) are insanely old. Remember in 1959 some 8 years after the reference paper by Klopfer Lee Cronbach himself stated "There is nothing in the literature to encourage reliance on Rorschach interpretations" a opinion echoed over the years by Reber, Dawes, and in the cases of Jones v Apfel (1997) and US v Battle (2001), and again with Drenth, Pieter J.D. (2003) (who compared Rorschach tests to Phrenology).--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- But then that's painting with a mile-wide brush. Some people choose to use ancient, unvalidated, undeveloped, unsupportable techniques, and legitimate psychologists rightfully reject these people. But it's not really fair to lump the legitimate uses of the Rorschach exam in with those illegitimate uses without a huge clarification. Maybe we can word this better. Crcarlin (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
There's another issue with the edit: "extremely time consuming" does not imply "subject to author's style" as the new text states. Time consuming does leave encouragement to cut corners, but it's more things like the precision required for the explanation that leave author's style as a factor.
I'd like to work on the working for this section tonight, if I remember and have a chance. Crcarlin (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments about the ink blots
Many citation here, don't follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability the right way. You should cite the book, not only one of the autors surnames, the year and the page. Many information here is not verifiable and could be removed! EternamenteAprendiz (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- ^ (1958) Journal of personality assessment Volumes 22-23; Page 462
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- Unassessed psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Unassessed medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- Unassessed Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press