Rorschach Test is it reliable?
KaitlynJones
Is it reliable in personality
assessment???
Kaitlyn
Kent Campbell
: Anyone have an opinion????
:
: Kaitlyn
Hi Kaitlyn -
check PsychInfo (or PsychLit), MedLine, Tests in Print,
and the Mental Measurements Yearbooks. Those are always good places to
start.
As far as the reliability of the Rorschach goes - it's
based on psychoanalytic theory, so I don't take it very seriously.
Nonsense is still nonsense no matter how reliable it is.
Best wishes,
Kent.
Mark Morin
Actually, that's a very common misconception. The Rorschach has about
as much in commoon (at least as it's used today) as did B.F. Skinner.
The Exner System is an empirically derived system of interpretation. I
believe his sample sizes are in excess of 10,000. As my stats prof used
to say, he has enough power to pick a hair off the ass of a fly.
The variables are empirically defined such that sensitivity and
specificity are maximized. The administration and scoring are
standardized and exceptionally reliable.
You may want to look at this quarter's edition of Psychological
Assessment--the focus is on the Rorschach.
Mark
--
**************
We might well ask if anything which cannot be addressed in scientific
terms is really worthy of our attention. Yet most of the things that
give life its depth, meaning, and value are impervious to science.
Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D.
Kitchen Table Wisdom
http://www.goti.net/members/mmorin/index.htm
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Rolf Marvin Bře Lindgren
| The Exner System is an empirically derived system of interpretation. I
| believe his sample sizes are in excess of 10,000. As my stats prof used
| to say, he has enough power to pick a hair off the ass of a fly.
my stats prof disagrees. there was a series of articles in the APS
Observer (or whaterver) about the Exner system where some of its critics
charged that many of its sources were unpublished and questionable.
even so I agree that it's not valid to attack it for psychoanalytical
roots, since it's (supposedly, then) empirically veryfied.
--
Rolf Lindgren, | http://www.uio.no/~roffe/
cand.psychol. |
[ Big 5 | Radical Behaviorism | Knowledge Management | Teambuilding | Cats ]
marc schneider
>> Nonsense is still nonsense no matter how reliable it is.
>
>Actually, that's a very common misconception. The Rorschach has about
>as much in commoon (at least as it's used today) as did B.F. Skinner.
>
>believe his sample sizes are in excess of 10,000. As my stats prof used
>to say, he has enough power to pick a hair off the ass of a fly.
>
>specificity are maximized. The administration and scoring are
>standardized and exceptionally reliable.
>Mark
>
********************
The Beck scoring was also empirical. Exner just added a few modifications of
scoreable response types and did a new sample for the stats -- but Beck had
stats too.
I used to use the test but gave it up for several reasons. One reason being
that present day individuals are often too removed from that type of free
thinking as compared to years ago when people had to learn how to entertain
themselves and how to look for shapes in the clouds, etc., after you are
finished with the stats portion of the testing/scoring you still have a very
large amount of subjective interpretation to do (as you do with any
projective) but you first spend all this time in scoring and running stats
before you get to be just as subjective as you can with the TAT or HTP. I
have found absolutely no lose from dropping the test from my testing
batteries. Additionally, many people have a gut reaction to the test as a
stereotype of testing and this creates a problem.
Marc Schneider, Psy.D.
e-mail to: <drm...@wwa.com>
(call sign: W4NVY)
Mark Morin
>
> >> Nonsense is still nonsense no matter how reliable it is.
> >
> >Actually, that's a very common misconception. The Rorschach has about
> >as much in commoon (at least as it's used today) as did B.F. Skinner.
> >
> >The Exner System is an empirically derived system of interpretation. I
> >believe his sample sizes are in excess of 10,000. As my stats prof used
> >to say, he has enough power to pick a hair off the ass of a fly.
> >
> >The variables are empirically defined such that sensitivity and
> >specificity are maximized. The administration and scoring are
> >standardized and exceptionally reliable.
>
> >Mark
> >
> ********************
>
> The Beck scoring was also empirical. Exner just added a few modifications of
> scoreable response types and did a new sample for the stats -- but Beck had
> stats too.
Klopfer and Piotrowski both had stats too. Good old Hermann himself had
collected some data when he died at the age of 37. Exner's contribution
was considerably more than modifying response types.
> I used to use the test but gave it up for several reasons. One reason being
> that present day individuals are often too removed from that type of free
> thinking as compared to years ago when people had to learn how to entertain
> themselves and how to look for shapes in the clouds, etc., after you are
> finished with the stats portion of the testing/scoring you still have a very
> large amount of subjective interpretation to do (as you do with any
> projective) but you first spend all this time in scoring and running stats
> before you get to be just as subjective as you can with the TAT or HTP. I
> have found absolutely no lose from dropping the test from my testing
> batteries. Additionally, many people have a gut reaction to the test as a
> stereotype of testing and this creates a problem.
I don't use it all that frequently doing neuropsych but I much prefer
looking at a structural summary than an MMPI print out.
In not sure I'm in agreement with the change in visualization
abilities. If that were the case, I'd expect a downward shift of the
mean scores for other tests that tapped into right hemispheric
functioning. going from memory but it seems like means have remained
fairly stable on things like the Benton tests, Rey-O.
As far as subjective interpretation, that can be a part of it. I've
never had to resort to it. I can get more than enough information
simply from the structural summary so as to know what I need to know.
If I had a good scorer, I wouldn't even necessarily want to see
individual responses or the specific content.
mark
--
**************
We might well ask if anything which cannot be addressed in scientific
terms is really worthy of our attention. Yet most of the things that
give life its depth, meaning, and value are impervious to science.
Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D.
Kitchen Table Wisdom
http://www.goti.net/members/mmorin/index.htm
Psychology FAQ (a work in progress) http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Resort/5806/spp/ mailto:postm...@127.0.0.1
Kent Campbell
: I don't use it all that frequently doing neuropsych but I much prefer
: looking at a structural summary than an MMPI print out.
: In not sure I'm in agreement with the change in visualization
: abilities. If that were the case, I'd expect a downward shift of the
: mean scores for other tests that tapped into right hemispheric
: functioning. going from memory but it seems like means have remained
: fairly stable on things like the Benton tests, Rey-O.
: As far as subjective interpretation, that can be a part of it. I've
: never had to resort to it. I can get more than enough information
: simply from the structural summary so as to know what I need to know.
: If I had a good scorer, I wouldn't even necessarily want to see
: individual responses or the specific content.
: mark
: --
: **************
: We might well ask if anything which cannot be addressed in scientific
: terms is really worthy of our attention. Yet most of the things that
: give life its depth, meaning, and value are impervious to science.
: Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D.
: Kitchen Table Wisdom
Hi Folks -
finally! A psychology discussion on a newsgroup - who'd have
thought it? Anyway - I don't have a copy of any of Exner's
publications here. In a nutshell, what theoretical basis did use? I
gather he abandoned the projection hypthesis so what did he use? Or was
he purely empirical like the developers of the MMPI?
Best wishes,
Kent.
Kat-Troll
picking up basic personality traits! It is said that the way a person
approaches the inkblot - is how they
approach life( Both are ambiguous)!
Kat
Mark Morin
> Hi Folks -
> finally! A psychology discussion on a newsgroup - who'd have
> thought it? Anyway - I don't have a copy of any of Exner's
> publications here. In a nutshell, what theoretical basis did use? I
> gather he abandoned the projection hypthesis so what did he use? Or was
> he purely empirical like the developers of the MMPI?
>
> Best wishes,
> Kent.
Is empiricism a theoretical basis? My read of his books is that he
started off with sets of variables derived from different people with
differing theoretical orientations. First step was to do some rough
discriminant analyses then take those variables that had predictive
validity. Clean up the scoring methodologies making them consistent,
cookbookish approach, more discriminant and factoral analyses and you
end up with variables that have predictive validity for specific real
life situations. Sensitivity and specificity vary per variable but
overall, it's pretty good--and still evolving.
mark
--
**************
We might well ask if anything which cannot be addressed in scientific
terms is really worthy of our attention. Yet most of the things that
give life its depth, meaning, and value are impervious to science.
Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D.
Kitchen Table Wisdom
http://www.goti.net/members/mmorin/index.htm