An Orientation/Overview

Maria Pamela P. Flores

Methods of Assessment II
PhD Program – Guidance & Counseling,
San Pedro College, Davao City
December 12, 2015
The Rorschach is a performance-based task or
behavioral assessment measure that assesses a
broad range of personality, perceptual, and
problem-solving characteristics, including thought
organization, perceptual accuracy and
conventionality, self-image and understanding of
others, psychological resources, schemas, and
dynamics.
The task provides a standard set of inkblot stimuli,
and is administered and coded according to
standardized guidelines.
 The Rorschach consists of inkblot stimuli that
were created, artistically re-fined, and studied
by Herman Rorschach from 1917 to 1920. The
final set of 10 stimuli was first published in 1921
(Rorschach, 1921/1942). Before publication,
Figure 1 Early inkblot for
possible use created by
Rorschach experimented with 40 or more
Hermann Rorschach. inkblots, many of which appear to be less
complex, nuanced, and detailed precursors to
the final set. Figure 1 is an example of one of
these inkblots; it appears to be an early version
of what is now the second inkblot.
• the initial norms were developed to help differentiate
among various clinical and normal populations:
schizophrenics, persons with intellectual disabilities
(mentally retarded), normals, artists, scholars, and other
specific subgroups with known characteristics; Rorschach
primarily wanted to establish empirically based
discriminations among different groups and was only
minimally concerned with the symbolical interpretation of
contents.
• 1957, five Rorschach systems were in wide use, the most
popular being those developed by Beck and Klopfer; came
to represent polarized schools of thought and were often
in conflict.
•Beck - stressed the importance of establishing
strong empirical relationships between
Rorschach codes and outside criterion
measures.
• Klopfer - aligned to phenomenology and the
theories of personality developed by Freud and
Jung; as a result, he emphasized the symbolical
and experiential nature of a respondent’s
Rorschach contents
• Additional systems developed by Piotrowski,
Hertz, and Rapaport and represented a middle
ground
•With five distinct systems available, the Rorschach became not a
unitary test, but five different tests
•Exner provided a comparative analysis of these different systems
and later concluded that “ the notion of the Rorschach was more
myth than reality”. He pointed out that none of the five systems
used the same verbal instructions and only two of the systems
required identical seating arrangements.
•Each systematizer developed their own format for scoring;
resulted in many differences regarding interpretation, the
components required to calculate quantitative formulas, the
meanings associated with many of the variables, and the
interpretive postulates.
• Stimuli from the environment are organized by
person’s needs, motives, conflicts and by certain
“perceptual sets”
• These needs become exaggerated when subjects
are confronted with ambiguous stimuli
• These responses are representative of how
individuals confront other ambiguous situations
• Responses are scored along 5 major categories:
1. Location 4. Popularity
2. Determinants 5. Form Level
3. Content
• Bypasses conscious • Questionable reliability and validity
resistance • Complex scoring systems
• High resistance to faking • Lack of standardized administration
good and scoring system
• Ease of administration • Limited use with children (esp.
(50 minutes) under 14)
• Large number of variables can
produce spurious random
significance
 Wayne H. Holtzman sought to overcome the major
limitations in the Rorshach by developing a completely
new technique using more inkblots with simplified
procedures for administration and scoring.
• series of 45 cards
From Holtzman's original
1961 "Inkblot Perception
• limited to one response per card
and Personality" book • followed by twofold question:
showing an inkblot and
pointing out different 1. Where was the precept represented in the blot?; &
areas. The text provides
some example 2. What about the blot suggested the precept?
interpretations and how
these are scored.
• the 45 responses are scored for 22 different variables
derived from early Rorshach scoring systems
NAMES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF HOLTZMAN INKBLOT TECHNIQUE (HIT) VARIABLES
 •Comes in two carefully constructed parallel forms and
is invaluable for test-retest studies
•Scoring system is highly reliable with accompanying
adequate standardization process
Holtzman inkblots
interpretation are graded
•Interscorer agreement is at .95 to 1.00 for most
according to a number of categories
pre-defined criteria.
•Validity has been addressed in several hundred
research studies and has modest support especially as
an aid in psychodiagnosis
•Recent variant the HIT 25 holds exceptional promise
in the diagnosis of schizophrenia
1. Introducing the subject to the
technique
2. Giving the test instructions
3. The Response Phase
4. The Inquiry Phase
• Subject and examiner sit side-by-side
• When it is time to administer the Rorschach, say the following, "Now
we are going to take the inkblot test. As you know from our discussion
earlier it is a set of inkblots. I will hand them to you one at a time and
your task is to look at each card to answer the question "What might
this be?" Does that make sense?" If the answer is no, find out what is
unclear and address the issue. If the answer is yes, say the following:
"Good. We can get started then. Try to give two or maybe three
responses to each card. That is, on each card try to see two or three
different things."
• Next, hand Card I in the upright position to the examinee and say just
the following four words: "What might this be?"
• Record all verbal material verbatim
• Record position of the blot: <,^,>, v to designate whether
the card is pointing left, up, right, down respectively.
• If the examinee is speaking too quickly, it is fine to slow
him or her down (e.g., "I am writing down everything
you say, so go a little slower please." or "I'm having
trouble keeping up with you; can you slow down some?
Thanks."). In addition, if you need the examinee to repeat
something, prompt him or her by providing the last few
words that you recorded. For instance, you could say,
"Sorry; I couldn't keep up. Can you repeat that? You said
"This was a bear climbing…?
1) First, as part of the standard instructions (see below), when
introducing the task say "Try to give two or maybe three responses to
each card. That is, on each card try to see 2 or 3 different things."
2) Second, during administration use a "Prompt for Two, Pull after Four"
guideline, which is designed to increase R on the low end and
decrease R on the high end. Instructions are as follows:
a. Prompts: When given just one response on any card, request
another. Suitable prompts could include: "Take your time; there's no
hurry. Look some more to see something else too."; "Thanks, but
give it some more time. Look longer and try to see something
different too."; or "There's no rush. Take your time and see if you
see anything else also."
b. Pulls: Once the person gives four responses, request that she or he
return the card. Extend your hand to the person and say something like
"Alright, that's good; let’s do the next one." or "Thanks, that's all we
need on this one."

To preserve rapport you may decide to inquire additional responses that

are given after the first four, however, they would not be included in the
summary data. Also, note that the term "pull" to describe this tactic might
be misleading if taken literally. A good working alliance with the examinee
is essential so don't actually grab and pull a card from the person's hands.
3. Third, during administration, record behavior related to the prompts
and pulls. Even though the administration guidelines provide more
structure than in the past, some examinees will still give fewer than two or
more than four responses on a card. As such, record how often you
prompt (Pr) for a second response and how often you pull (Pu) after four.
In terms of recording pulls (Pu), note each time that you request that the
person discontinue after four responses. Be sure to also note on the
verbatim transcript if the person persists in giving an additional response
after such a request. Knowing how frequently the administration
boundaries are crossed will provide clinically helpful information about
characteristics associated with cooperation and productivity when they
are low (e.g., resistance or limited resources) and high (e.g., fluid,
affectively driven responding).
4) Fourth, to help ensure a sufficient pool of responses for interpretation, if
you do not obtain 14 or more responses initially, retain all the initial
responses but go through all cards again with encouragement for the
examinee to give a few more responses. Unlike standard CS administration,
use the responses from the first administration but administer the cards
again and collect the extra responses spontaneously given by the examinee.
Although it is quite unlikely to occur, if the subject produces fewer than 14
responses say something like:

a. "That was fine. However, we need a few more responses in order for
this test to be most helpful. So let's go through the cards again. I will
show them to you one by one. Take your time when looking at them. I'm
sure you will be able to see some more things. We just need a few more
altogether."
• Conducted after all responses are given to all 10
cards
• Gain information needed to score accurately
• Nondirective questions; brevity is the rule
• Complete location sheet
• Not used to generate new information
“O.K., we’ve done them all. Now we are going to go back
through them. It won’t take long. I want you to help me see
what you saw. I’m going to read what you said, and then I
want you to show me where in the blot you saw it and
what is there that makes it look like that, so I can see it too.
I’d like to see it just like you did, so help me now. Do you
understand?”
• Card I is handed to the subject
“All right, here you said.. (verbatim reading of
response)”
Focus on gaining information and asking questions
on:
• Location (Where is it?)
• Determinants (What makes it look like that?)
• Content (What is it?)
•Clinical Guideline 1: Exercise caution when using the CS
norms, as research indicates that their use is related to the
over-perception of psychopathology. In many instances, it
may be best not to use the CS norms.
-Problems with Exner’s Comprehensive System (CS) such as
normative sample, variables with no strong support by research
evidence, etc. (Rorschach has 125 variables)
-Use of CS norms causes psychologists to overperceive
psychopathology (research evidence); serious implications
Clinical Guideline 2: Use scores that are valid for their
intended purposes. Scores should be validated in well-
designed studies, results should be consistent, and positive
findings should be replicated by independent investigators.
– Conventional view: projective tech. used as part of test battery, results
should be integrated with history and interview information; should weigh
test results only if they are in agreement with other results (only if they
make sense in the context of other results)
- Alternative view: should use projective techniques only if indexes have
been shown to be valid for their intended purposes; one should not use an
invalid test score even if results for this test score are in agreement with
findings from other sources of info.
Clinical Guideline 3: Do not use the
Rorschach, TAT, or human figure drawings to
detect child physical or sexual abuse.
-The use of projective techniques for the detection of
child physical and sexual abuse can be harmful as
erroneous decisions may cause considerable suffering
and pain for the child, the family, as well as for other
persons

- a child may score in a pathological direction because CS

norms are flawed, not because the child has been
sexually or physically abused.
Clinical Guideline 4: Use projective techniques differently
depending on whether one is testifying in court as an expert
witness, evaluating a client in clinical practice, or using a
projective technique as an aid for exploration in
psychotherapy.
-Standards for forensic practice is more rigorous than in clinical practice
-Standards should be more rigorous for conducting a psychological
evaluation than when using assessment information as an aid for
exploration in psychotherapy.
- use of indexes supported by research only but one can be liberal or
conservative in making interpretations depending upon the nature of
assessment (forensic vs. clinical; evaluation vs. psychotherapy)
Musings on a Rorschach Revision (Gary-Groth Marnat)
•Carefully/critically review all the Rorschach scoring categories/formulas to
identify those that have the strongest support.
•Use only those variables with strong research support; a potential for an
abbreviated Rorschach
•Revised instructions to include more control over the number of responses.
•The use of computerized administration and scoring.
•Make it user friendly such as renaming the categories (e.g. lambda,
erlebnistypus, etc.) and formulas as well as presenting the data in a
graphical form.
References:
Framingham, J. (2013). Rorshach Inkblot Test. Psych central. Rtetrieved on Aug. 4, 2015,
from http://psychcentral.com/lib/rorshach-inkblot-test/
Meyer, G.J., Viglione, D.J. () An Intriduction to Rorshach Assessment (2007).
Essentials of Rorshach Assessment
Garb , H. N., Lilienfield, S.O., Wood, J.M. & Nezworski, M. Teresa Effective Use of
Projective Techniques in Clinical Practice: Let the data Help With Selection and
Interpretation (2002). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (Vol. 33, No. 5,
452-463)
Groth-Marnat, Gary. The Five Assessment Issues You Meet When You Go to Heaven.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 91:4, 303-310.