HISTORICAL, THEORETICAL, AND PSYCHOMETRIC OVERVIEW

Projective, is best described by Murray (1943): “ There is the tendency for people to interpret an ambiguous human situation in conformity with their past experiences and present wants ” This forms the basis of the projective hypothesis. The projective hypothesis rests on the assumption that people, in the absence of clear environmental demands, will project basic aspects of themselves in their interpretations of environmental stimuli.

Freudian theory, which dominated clinical psychology for decades, heavily emphasized unconscious conflict as the basic element of human personality. Projection is seen by many as being a window to these unconscious dynamics ( Rabin, 1986). Projective methods of personality assessment provide the clinician with a window through which to understand an individual by the analysis of responses to ambiguous or vague stimuli.

These methods are generally unstructured and also call on the individual to create the data from his or her personal experience. An individual ’ s response ( s ) to these stimuli can reflect internal needs, emotions, past experiences, thought processes, relational patterns, and various aspects of behavior.

projective methods involve the presentation of a stimulus designed to evoke highly individualized meaning and organization. The individual is encouraged to explore an infinite range of possibilities in relating his or her private world of meanings, significance, affect, and organization ( Frank, 1939).

Projective Test

An important aspect of projective stimuli is their ability to provide information about thoughts, actions, and emotions. occur as a representation, through various mediums, of an individual ’ s personal experience such as narratives ( i. e., storytelling ) and the perception of visual images.

The manner by which people create images and organize language, affective expressions, or perceptions is seen to be highly personal. These modes of responding can reveal patterns of that individual ’ s thought, associations, and experiences.

Strength & limitation Projective assessment data from numerous instruments has proven to be useful in describing, diagnosing, and formulating treatment plans for patients with borderline psychopathology ( Rorschach, the TAT, and the Early MemoriesTest ). Projective tests may contribute to the understanding of trauma reactions and clinical issues related to trauma syndromes ( Armstrong and Kaser - Boyd ; the Rorschach and TAT ).

Projective technique can play in evaluating suicidal ideation and patient risk for self - harm ( the Rorschach and TAT ). They can also be useful in identifying formal disturbances in perception and thought organization ( empirical reviews of the validity of projective techniques in the assessment of thought disorder ; Bellak & Abrams, 1997; Hilsenroth, Fowler, & Padawer, 1998; J ّ rgensen, Andersen, & Dam, 2000; W. Perry & Braff, 1998; W. Perry, Geyer, & Braff, 1999; Viglione, 1999; Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001).

SPECIAL POPULATIONS AND SETTINGS Minassian and Perry review the use of projective personality instruments in the assessment of neurologically impaired individuals ( neuropsychological funtioning ) head - injured patients, patients with cerebral dysfunctions, aging patients, dementia patients, and neurologically impaired children and adolescents

G. Perry and Kinder (1990) and Schretlen (1997) published their literature reviews about malingering detection using projective personality test

In court

The Controversy Surrounding Projective Techniques projective techniques remain one of the most commonly used methods of clinical assessment by psychologists in general ( Watkins, Campbell, Neiberding, & Hallmark, 1995) and by child psychologists specifically ( Hojnoski, Morrison, Brown, & Matthews, 2006).

Much of the debate over the use of projective techniques comes from a confusion as to the most appropriate criteria with which to judge the usefulness of projectives. Debate is not to decide which view is right. What is more crucial is for one to recognize the two disparate ways of using projective techniques and the unique strengths and weaknesses of both.

Drawing test Koppitz (1983) writes : “ Drawing is a natural mode of expression for boys and girls. It is a nonverbal language and form of communication ; like any other language, it can be analyzed f or structure, quality, and content ” ( p. 426). drawings contain nonverbal clues and symbolic messages about a child ’ s self - concept, motivations, concerns, attitudes, and desires ( Cummings, 1986).

Draw - a - Person Technique

made popular by a seminal publication by Koppitz (1968). In this technique a child is simply given a paper and lead pencil and asked to draw a picture of a whole person. After finishing this first drawing, the child is given another sheet of paper and asked to draw another person of the opposite sex from the first drawing.

Koppitz (1968) provides one of the most explicit guides to interpreting children ’ s figure drawings. She organizes her approach around three basic questions : How did the child draw the figure ? Whom does the child draw ? What is the child trying to express via the drawing ?

Koppitz notes that a child ’ s drawing may (1) be a reflection of a child ’ s wish, fantasy, or ideal ; (2) be an expression of real attitudes or conflicts ; or (3) be a mixture of both

House–Tree–Person the House - Tree - Person ( HTP ) technique ( Cummings, 1986). In this technique the child is asked to draw a house, a tree, and a person. After the drawing, children are asked a series of questions to give them an opportunity to describe and interpret the objects that were drawn ( Cummings, 1986; Koppitz, 1983).

According to one of the originators of the HTP technique, the three figures give insight into different facets of a child ’ s functioning ( Hammer, 1958). The house is thought to elicit feelings associated with the child ’ s home situation and familial relationship. In contrast, the tree is thought to elicit deeper and unconscious feelings about the child and his or her relationships with the environment. Unlike the self - portrait, the tree is thought to have less pull for conscious self - descriptions and therefore to involve a greater level of projection. And, finally, the drawing of a person is thought to reflect more of a conscious or semiconscious view of the child ’ s self, the child ’ s ideal self, or a significant other.

COMPREHENSIVE HANDBOOK OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ; Mark J. Hilsenroth & Daniel L. Segal ; 2004; John Wiley & Sons, Inc Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and Behavior ; Paul J. Frick, Christopher T. Barry, & Randy W. Kamphaus ; 2010; Springer