Maggie Selander, Julia Martin, Marie Ware, Caroline Lopez, Lynn

 Central Assumption:  Stimuli from the environment are organized by a person’s specific needs, motives, conflicts, & by certain perceptual “sets”  exaggerated when faced with ambiguous stimuli like ink-blots!  Person must draw from their own personal internal images, ideas, and relationships to create a response.  Purpose:  To asses the structure of personality, with particular emphasis on how individuals construct their experience & the meanings assigned to their own perceptual experiences  Provides information on variables such as: motivations, response tendencies, cognitive operations, affectivity, & personal/interpersonal perceptions

 Many inkblot-type tests had existed long before The Rorschach  Da Vinci & Botticelli were interested in determining how a person’s interpretation of ambiguous designs reflected their personality  A popular game in the late 1800’s required players to make creative responses to inkblots  Hermann Rorschach published first 10 cards in 1921  1 st extensive empirically based system to score & interpret responses to a standardized set of cards  Originally intended to use the test to note the characteristic responses of different types of populations ▪ Initial norms were used to help differentiate between clinical and normal populations ▪ Rorschach was only minimally concerned with the symbolic interpretation of contents. ▪ Many of his original concepts & scoring categories still used

Unfortunately Rorschach died shortly after publishing his work, Psychodiagnostic, at age 37 Without the guidance & research of “the founding father” the test’s continued development was taken up by person’s with different backgrounds than Rorschach & each other By 1957, 5 Rorschach systems were in use, the most popular being those developed by Beck & Klopfer ▪ Represented polarized schools of though & were often in conflict.

 S. J. Beck (1937) adhered closely to original format for coding & scoring  Emphasized the perceptual-cognitive process in which respondents structure & organize their perceptions into meaningful responses ▪ Likely to reflect how they respond to their world in general  B. Klopfer (1937) closely aligned to theories of personality developed by Freud & Jung  Emphasized the symbolic content & experiential nature of the respondent’s Rorschach contents  Responses are fantasy products triggered by the inkblots and reflect perceived aspects of their world Piotrowski, Hertz, & Rapaport’s versions represented “middle- ground” between the Klopfer and Beck but were not as popular

 Exner (1969) provided a comparative analysis of the 5 different systems  Concluded “the notion of the Rorschach was more myth than reality” ▪ The 5 systems used the same verbal instructions ▪ Only 2 required identical seating arrangements ▪ Each had developed their own format for scoring resulting in different interpretations ▪ The wide range of approaches resulted in numerous detrimental practices ▪ Lacked consistency in the administration, scoring, and interpretation of contents ▪ Difficulty recruiting subjects, experimenter bias, statistical complexities of data analysis, inadequate control groups, insufficient normative data  Research on & the clinical use of the Rorschach was seriously flawed

 Exner & his colleagues began the collection of a broad normative database and the development of an integrated system of scoring/interpretation  Established clear guidelines for seating, verbal instructions, recording, & inquiry by the examiner regarding the examinee responses  Scoring category based on both empirical validation (min. of.85 level for inter-scorer reliability) & commonality across the 5 different systems  Final product 1 st published in 1974, The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System ▪ 2 nd ed (1986), 3 rd ed (1993), and 4 th ed (2003) ▪ A 2 nd volume relating to current research & interpretation has been released in two editions (Exner, 1978, 1991) ▪ Additionally, two editions on the assessment of children/adolescents have been published

 The most recent publication has included 450 contemporary protocols from persons, 18 to 65+, split evenly between males and females, with a wide range of education & ethnicities  Most research studies from the past 20 years use this system & is the most frequently taught version in graduate schools  Exner’s work to empirically validate the Rorschach with a comprehensive system has increased its acceptance & status

 Exner has been responsible for much of the leadership and advances regarding the Rorschach  His death in 2006 opens up the possibility for significant changes in his system  However, the merits of nearly all aspects of the test continue to be challenged including:  Inter-scorer reliability  Norms  Temporal stability  Accuracy of meta-analysis that have previously found support for the test

 Exner only included scoring categories that had an inter-rater reliability of.85 or higher  Some controversy has resulted concerning these values, other researchers found greater variability  A (2000) study found that nearly half of the categories for the comprehensive system had excellent reliability ratings (>.81)  1/3 had substantial reliability (>.61)  1/4 had less than adequate (<.61)  Sample sizes were small, greater variability would be expected

 The most recent & rigorous study, G. Meyer et all (2002) concluded that overall the Comprehensive System has excellent inter-scorer reliability ranging from.82 to.97  If scorers are appropriately trained  Interpretive agreement among experienced clinicians ranged between.76 to.89  Test-retest reliabilities somewhat variable  Of 41 (out of 125) variables over a 1yr interval found reliability ranging from.26 to.92 (most between.81 &.89) ▪ Exner - low reliabilities were due to the variables being affected by the changeable state (not trait) characteristics of the person ▪ Study supported that some variables or valid indicators for change following psychotherapy ▪ Many of the Rorschach’s variables are untested for reliability