Rorschach Inkblot Test: thorough outline and history

Rorschach Inkblot Test

History of mining for meaning behind objects:

• Historically people have studied the meaning behind various shapes of clouds, intestines, ashes, lead or wax once dropped into water, tea leaves and coffee grounds (Brussel, Hitch, Piotrowski, 1950, p. 36). These objects were once thought to, and sometime still believed to, aid in the understanding of significant life events (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 36)
• Leonardo da Vinci was one of the first people to publicly note that people developed perceptions when presented with vague objects like the ones mention above (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 37). He asked artists to create blots and analyze them to exercise their creativity (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 37). Da Vinci firmly believed that within ones painting resided the artist’s physical and mental personality traits (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 37)
• In 1848 a guy named George Dearborn published a paper detailing the results of his study, which involved presenting 12 sets of 10 inkblots to 16 individuals
• In 1857 an older man named Kerner, who was experiencing difficulties in his life, published a set of symmetrical drawings constructed from inkblots (ditties) and corresponding short-poems that were gloomy (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 37)
• At the end of 19th century Alfred Binet, who developed the modern intelligence methodology, began to focus on assessing personality via visual stimuli (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 37). Binet and a guy named Henri used inkblots as part of a test that was supposed to assess individual differences in 1895, but ended up deeming the inkblots as merely a test of “passive imagination” (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 37)
• In 1897 George Dearborn noticed that inkblots could help identify traits that were associated with social relationships (specifically: occupation, living habits, living environment, level of mental stability) and published a paper about how this info could be used to study individuals with mental health issues (Brussel et al., 1950. He wanted to use this k)nowledge to look at how disturbed mental states affected inkblot test responses, but never got around to doing so (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 37)
• In 1905 Binet and Henri wrote a paper that suggested wide sampling was a requirement for valid testing of intelligence- under this assumption, limitations were placed on the interpretability of the inkblot technique (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 37). This paper resulted in further investigation of the inkblot technique (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 37)
• Around 1905 Sharp and Kirkpatrick jumped on the inkblot bandwagon and studied the inkblot technique (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 38)
• In 1910 Theodere Rybakow, a Russian psychologist, published an atlas for experimental personality research
• In 1910 a guy named Whipple developed a manual for the inkblot technique that stated the following response characteristics should be recorded: speed of association, relation to age, occupational influence, atypical responses, number of responses and the complexity of responses (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 38). From the results of his research on the inkblot technique he concluded that this method was not a measure of passive imagination, as previously thought by Binet and Henri- instead he proposed that the inkblot technique was a measure of active imagination (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 38)
• From that point on, additional studies on the inkblot technique were conducted (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 38)
• The Rorschach test background:
• All about Rorschach:
• The Rorschach method (Psychodiagnostiks) was published by a Swiss psychiatrist named Hermann Rorschach in 1921 (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 5). His publication detailed the results of his studies on 300 individuals with mental health issues and 100 individuals who were considered normal (the control group). Rorschach noted that there were differences between the experimental and control groups’ responses, but warned the public that his results were preliminary and needed to be studied in more detail. Rorschach passed away before he had the chance to adequately evaluate and refine his test
• Rorschach was very interested in art and had a father who taught drawing, which may have contributed to the idea that lead him to develop the Rorschach test (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 37). Rorschach did not mention how much he knew about previous research pertaining to the inkblot technique, so it is unknown how previous studies influenced his research (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 38)
• Rorschach enjoyed playing a game called Blotto (where ink is dropped on paper, the paper is folded and then unfolded and then people take turns sharing what they see in the resulting ink-blot). According to Rorschach’s wife, he had an interest in using blotto for psychological purposes that was sparked by his former classmate, who became a teacher and used inkblots to encourage his students engage in creative writing (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 38). Rorschach’s former classmate shared some of his students’ responses with him and from 1910-1912 Rorschach wondered how the students’ responses were related to personality traits (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 38). Over the years that followed, Rorschach continued to think about the possible meaning of inkblot responses (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 38). Other sources indicate Rorschach worked with adolescents in a psychiatric hospital and thought it was interesting that the kids he worked with provided different responses to the same inkblots when playing Blotto;  These sources claimed he originally developed his inkblot test to look at the reflex hallucinations of individuals
• Rorschach finally decided to combine his interest in inkblots with his interest in psychiatry by seeing what people with schizophrenia saw in inkblots that he had randomly created. Rorschach initially constructed 20 inkblots for this purpose and paid a publisher to reproduce 10 of the inkblots (as many as he could afford) and his test manuscript. The reproduction of the inkblots was distorted, which upset Rorschach, but he was unable to get the publisher to fix the inkblots and could not afford to have them fixed, so instead he tried to convince himself that the publisher’s rendition of the inkblots were better than the original inkblots. Rorschach died in 1922 and had only spent a total of four years working on his inkblot test
• Without Rorschach around to guide the test process, multiple administration, scoring and interpretation methods were entertained, all of which were considered to be greatly flawed. A guy named Exner had a desire to combine the most desirable features of the methods and transform them into one cohesive and more appropriate system- now known as the Comprehensive System. The individuals who helped Exner execute his idea were: David Rapport, Bruno Klopfer, Marguerite Hertz, Zygmunt Piotrowski and Samuel Beck
• The Rorschach test became popular in clinical psychology in the 1940s and 1950s. As time passed, some clinicians began to view the test in a negative light, calling it subjective and projection-based.Eventually more modern approaches to interpreting responses were developed to address those concerns.

• Theory:
• The 1950 training manual reports that the Rorschach test was not based on theory because the goal of personality theory (to identify how personality is made) was not consistent with the goal of the test (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 39)
• Goal of the Rorschach test= to explain why factors within responses uncover certain personality traits (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 39)
• Projection (assigning one’s tendencies to other people or events without explanation or consciously processing what is happening) is theoretically based and applies to the Rorschach test, at least in some cases, even though Rorschach never mentioned it in his publication of the Rorschach method (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 40; Weiner, 1998, p. 6). Projection is mostly an associational process (Weiner, 1998, p. 16). In 1939 a guy named L. K. Frank noted the association between projection and the Rorschach test, asserting that personality tests that aren’t very structured create situations in which test takers project their own thoughts and feelings (Weiner, 1998, p. 6). Other individuals jumped on the bandwagon, basically saying the same thing as Frank, which led to the Rorschach test being considered a projective (as opposed to objective) test (at least until more structured administration, scoring and interpretation methods became available) (Weiner, 1998, p. 7). Because the Rorschach became known as a projective measure people often assume (though not true) that: the Rorschach test is purely subjective and test responses inevitably involve projection (Weiner, 1998, p. 7)
• Uses
• Prior to 1942: The test was used as a way to observe how individuals’ personality was unconsciously reflected in test responses and to help identify psychological disorders (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 8)
• 1942 – 1949: The Rorschach test was not a psychometric measure, so it was typically used clinically as a method of diagnosis (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 8). Specifically, it was used for military-related psychiatric and psychological exams (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2). The Rorschach method, like other psychological measurement tools, was popularized during WWII and used by the German military and the British and Canadian armies- it was later employed by the U.S. military (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 3). By 1944 the Rorschach method was widely accepted by clinicians (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 3). The Rorschach was believed to help identify illness in people with mental health issues, identify differences in personality for people considered to be “normal” and act as an intelligence test (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 33). At one point in time the Rorschach test was also used to test imagination, thought processes and reflex hallucinations

• 1950 – Present: used in psychiatric and psychological exams aimed at assessing both individuals’ with and without mental health issues personality type and reactions to life situations and demands (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 3). The Rorschach is typically used as a subjective measure of total personality (not isolated mental functions), despite the availability of more objective methods of interpretation (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 24). The Rorschach test is used in therapy projections, child adjustment analyses, procedures for screening prisoners and public schools (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 26). Additionally the Rorschach is used by some psychologists in clinical settings as a psycho-diagnostic tool (to help make personality evaluations or help diagnose individuals with a mental disorder) and to hear an individual’s “inner cry”

• Common Perspectives Regarding the Rorschach Test
• Objective VS Subjective
• The most prevalent perspective identifies the Rorschach test as a test that has both objective and subjective properties (Weiner, 1998, p. 18)
• Rorschach never intended the test to be subjective in nature
• Perception VS Association approach
• The most prevalent approach to interpreting responses involves a mixture of both perception and association (Weiner, 1998, p. 16)
• Using one approach over another or a combination of both is seen as a personal preference (Weiner, 1998, p. 19)
• Perception is when responses are based on observable physical characteristics of the inkblots (Weiner, 1998, p. 79)
• These responses are usually based on card pull (inkblot characteristics that make individuals more likely to base responses on specific parts of the inkblot) (Weiner, 1998, p. 86)
• Association is when an individual relates something personal to the inkblots (Weiner, 1998, p. 79)
• These responses are usually based on projection (Weiner, 1998, p. 79)
• Nomothetic (tendency to generalize similarities) VS Idiographic (tendency to specify differences) approach
• Traditionally, many people who adopted an association perspective also agreed with the idiographic perspective and many people who adopted a perception perspective adopted a nomothetic approach (Weiner, 1998, p. 17)
• Currently the most prevalent approach to interpreting responses is to combine these perspectives, however, they are a popular topic of debate (Weiner, 1998, p. 17)
• Nomothetic approaches to interpreting responses are based on the perspective that an individual represents a specific group of individuals (can be norm referenced) (Weiner, 1998, p. 17)
• Idiographic approaches to interpreting responses are based on the perspective that each individual is unique and has traits that represent him/her that are different from other individuals (Weiner, 1998, p. 16)
• Assessment of Personality Structure VS Personality Dynamic
• Traditionally, individuals who adopted the perspective that personality structure and dynamic were two separate features of personality typically believed that perceptions and associations were distinct ways to interpret responses (Weiner, 1998, p. 19)
• Scientific investigations have identified that both personality structure and dynamic interpretations are valid (Weiner, 1998, p. 20)
• Personality structure is when individuals’ current thoughts and feelings (personality states) and current disposition (personality traits) are believed to define who the person is (Weiner, 1998, p. 18)
• Personality dynamic is when individuals’ underlying needs, attitudes, conflicts and concerns that contribute to their thoughts, feelings and actions influence them in different ways at different times and in different situations (Weiner, 1998, p. 19)
• Test VS Method
• Traditionally the Rorschach was viewed as a test and is commonly still referred to as a test (Weiner, 1998, p. 20)
• It was once debated whether or not the Rorschach test should be considered a method because it was hard to show that it was valid and reliable, but it was considered useful, which made this argument less important (Weiner, 1998, p. 20). Additionally the Comprehensive System greatly improved the reliability and validity of the Rorschach test, making it qualify to be categorized as a test (Weiner, 1998, p. 21)
• Ainsworth proposed that the Rorschach was more than a test and suggested a need for users consider it a method instead without forgetting that the Rorschach test, using the Comprehensive System, qualifies as a test (Weiner, 1998, p. 21)
• Tests systematically measures the degree to which some factor/construct is present (Weiner, 1998, p. 21)
• Method a way of collecting data that allows data to be interpreted from many perspectives without the use of solely one underlying theory (Weiner, 1998, p. 21)

• Timeline of Interpretation Approach/Views:
• 1921 (the traditional approach): Psychodiagnostics, which is when a test used to make diagnoses is based on perception, was the traditional approach to response interpretation (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 33). The Rorschach method doesn’t explain why someone is the way they are, but is believed to uncover current personality states (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 39)
• Late 1940s: Responses were interpreted based on thematic imagery (when associational processes are used to associate or project certain characteristics onto the inkblots) (Weiner, 1998, p. 12). Practitioners began to pay less attention to the perceptual aspects of the test and stopped coding the structure in which test takers based their responses on
• 1954: Klopfer developed a way to systematically score structural aspects of responses (a graphical representation of each inkblot, broken down into various structural components) (Weiner, 1998, p. 13). Klopfer asserted that interpretation should be a 3-stage process involving analyzing quantitative data, looking at the sequence of scores and analyzing response content (Weiner, 1998, p. 56). Klopfer advised test users against assuming symbol meaning was universal or fixed (Weiner, 1998, p. 13)
• 1965: Zubin, Eron and Schumer conducted a literature review and found that psychometric properties of the Rorschach variables were not acceptable and suggested the Rorschach assessment be used a merely an interview (Weiner, 1998, p. 23). This was followed by other individuals noting that their literature review was based on early studies that were typically severely flawed (Weiner, 1998, p. 23)
• 1968: Rapaport supported an approach that suggested responses always involved both perception and association and that each was a perspective from which responses could be interpreted (Weiner, 1998, p. 13). He implied that these two perspective needed to be integrated to form a more complete and accurate interpretation of an individual’s responses (Weiner, 1998, p. 14)
• 1974 (the contemporary view): J.E. Exner went public with the Comprehensive System, a system used to interpret Rorschach responses via structured coding of structural response variables (Weiner, 1998, p. 14). The Comprehensive System improved the reliability of the test because it presented a systematic way to score responses that would be consistent between test proctors (Weiner, 1998, p. 14). This method of interpretation was eventually broadened (and included content analysis) as new data became available- structural components of interpretation were refined and new indices (e.g. the Isolation Index and the Intellectualization Index) were identified (which were based heavily on response content) (Weiner, 1998, p. 14). The Comprehensive System currently has 5 editions and includes: a workbook (5th edition), summary forms, the Rorschach plates and recording blanks. This method, as updated in 1991, focuses on both perception and association perspectives and identifies an order in which response variables should be assessed (Weiner, 1998, p. 15, 57)
• 1977: Miale insisted that both the structure and content of Rorschach responses should be analyzed (the integrationist perspective) and that the same symbols that are used to identify the content meaning can also be used to identify the meaning of the structure characteristics of responses (Weiner, 1998, p. 13)
• 1991: P. M. Lerner method consisted of content analysis + scoring like Rapaport (1968) (Weiner, 1998, p. 15)
• 1991: The Comprehensive System was updated: it split test variables into clusters and identified which clusters should be analyzed first (more info under “Using the Modern Approach”) (Weiner, 1998, p.57)
• 1994: Aronow, Reznikoff and Moreland’s method involved scoring using the Klopfer method + using Exner’s method for coding the popular and form level of responses (Weiner, 1998, p. 15); B. L. Smith suggested the psychoanalytic approach to interpretation involves applying the psychoanalytic perspective equally to both quantitative and qualitative data (Weiner, 1998, p. 15)
• 1996: Leichtman suggested the Rorschach is a measure of representation, not perception or association because the inkblots are physically only inkblots and misperception of the inkblots results in people making associations and perceptions of the ink blots and then developing impressions of them (Weiner, 1998, p. 15)

• Traditional Validity evaluation:
• 1.) Fort-Dix study conducted by Lt. Kenneth S. Hitch (1943) (co-author of 1950 training manual): Neruro-psychiatrists’ established patients’ original diagnoses and psychologists independently conducted the Rorschach test (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 4). Clinical diagnoses of patients were compared to the patients’ results acquired via the Rorschach method (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 4)
• Population: 50 young male patients (18-33 years old) who were diagnosed with various psychiatric conditions and receiving neuropsychiatric services at the Station Hospital at For-Dix (a military institution) (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 21)
• Psychosis: 22 patients (20 with schizophrenic symptoms and 2 with manic-depressive symptoms)
• Psychoneurosis: 12 patients (3 with hysteria, 3 with non-organic enuresis, 2 with anxiety, 2 with trauma, 1 with reactive depression and 1 with fugue)
• Psychopathic Personality: 6 patients
• Mental deficiency: 5 patients
• Organic disorders: 5 patients (1 with idiopathic epilepsy and 4 with cerebral damage)
• Agreement: Patient diagnoses given by the Neuro-psychiatrists were found to be in at complete agreement with results from the Rorschach test (administered by psychologists) for only 33 of the 50 cases or 66% of the time, essential agreement 20% of the time, partial agreement 12% of the time and non-agreement 2% of the time (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 23). Conservative evaluation was used, such that doubt about the degree of agreement led to the comparison being deemed essential agreement instead of complete agreement (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 23)
• 2) Way before patients’ pre-established diagnoses were compared with results from the Rorschach test interpretation in the Fort-Dix study, Rorschach conducted 2 blind case studies (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 82). In the blind case studies, a patient’s responses were analyzed without knowledge of his/her age, sex, personality, symptoms or history (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 33). Agreement between the Rorschach test interpretation for these 2 individuals and independent records concerning these 2 individuals’ traits were compared.
• Conducting blind case studies is described by Piotrowski as the best way to validate the Rorschach test using procedures described in Brussel et al.’s (1950) testing manual
• 3) Results of the Fort-Dix validity evaluation were compared to results obtained from non-military samples (e.g. Piotrowski’s studies & Klopfer’s studies)

• Beliefs about the traditional validity of the Rorschach Method:
• 1) Piotrowski believed the interpretation method could be applied to all subjects, despite differences, and maintain the same degree of validity (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 33)
• 2) Piotrowski believed that it didn’t really matter whose set of symbols were used to code responses- he believed that the validity of the Rorschach test was relatively unaltered by ones choice of symbols because each symbol had both a constant and changing meaning associated with it and, when defined properly, would have the same constant meaning regardless of which other symbols were used (Brussel et al., 1950, p.43) Additionally, he argued that the purpose of the Rorschach test was not to measure the meaning of isolated parts of personality, but to look at personality as a whole- therefore, it would only be necessary to identify the constant meaning of symbols and explain how the constant definitions could be maximized through the interrelatedness of other symbols (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 44)
• 3) Validity of this method cannot be based on one underlying theory because this test only looks at the current state of personality as opposed to how someone became that way (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 39)
• 4) The validity of the Rorschach method was based in large part on the fact that a variety of responses are observed within a sample, but each person within the sample typically focuses on a few responses that change very little once asked to go through the inkblots again and further describe what they see (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 40)

• Problems:
• 1) Limited generalizability- the blind case studies only took two individuals into account and Hitch’s sample population consisted of young males from one hospital in one geographic location
• 2) The military did not support diagnoses of dementia, which could have influenced test responses
• 3) The validation analysis of the Rorschach method (using the altered training manual based on Rorschach’s method) was incomplete (Brussel et al., 1950, p, 82)
• 4) It’s difficult to identify the degree to which the results of interpretations are based on the Rorschach test method and the degree to which it depends on the test proctor/interpreter (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 83). However, since results appear to typically measure certain traits and this method is deemed acceptable by many practitioners, this limitation is often overlooked
• Modern Validity Evaluation
• 1) Meta-analyses by Atkinson (1986) and Parker, Hanson and Hunsley (1988):
• Theory-based studies of the Rorschach variables yielded higher validity coefficients than non-theory based studies (Weiner, 1998, p, 25)
• Results indicated the Rorschach method is valid when properly used (Weiner, 1998, p. 26)
• Rorschach validation studies based on concepts yielded validity coefficients similar to those for the MMPI (Weiner, 1998, p. 25)
• Parker et al. (1988): 411 studies yielded population estimates of convergent validity coefficients of .41 (the MMPI yielded .46, which indicated no significant difference between the Rorschach method based purely on concepts and MMPI) (Weiner, 1998, p. 25)
• 2) Meta-analysis by Myer and Handler (1997):
• Looked at the predictive validity of the Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale (developed by Klopfer, Kirkner, Wisham and Baker in 1951) and found that it was a valid predictor of the outcome of psychotherapy and successfully predicted behavior change for adult and child patients in inpatient and outpatient environments (Weiner, 1998, p. 26)
• 3) Successfully applied to a variety of populations  external validity
• Individuals in U.S.
• Individuals in Europe
• Individuals in primitive and urban tribes
• Individuals of different age, SES, gender, cultural backgrounds and ethnicity
• 4) Individuals’ records that include less than 14 responses are typically considered invalid because it is unlikely they provide reliable information (Weiner, 1998, p. 63)
• Beliefs:
• 1) Using the structured scoring system, the Rorschach method is a valid way to describe some aspects of an individual’s personality structure and dynamics (Weiner, 1998, p. 26)
• 2) The modern Rorschach method has been shown to be a valid tool that can be used to aid in the diagnosis of individual’s with conditions that feature distinct patterns of personality functioning (Weiner, 1998, p. 26)
• 3) The modern Rorschach method can help: identify treatment goals and potential obstacles of psychotherapy progress, with the selection of appropriate treatment forms and keep track of change and improvements over time (Weiner, 1998, p. 26)
• 4) The modern Rorschach method is not a tool that was created to predict future behavior and its use involving behavioral predictions should be, at the least, limited to potential to behave some way based on personality (Weiner, 1998, p. 27). The results of using the Rorschach method for this purpose may result in more accurate predictions than chance alone, but should be interpreted cautiously (Weiner, 1998, p. 27)
• 5) The Rorschach method typically identifies the same personality characteristics despite the test taker’s age, but interpretations of personality characteristics may vary between different age groups (when implying something about an individual based on responses, age needs to be considered) (Weiner, 1998, p. 42)
• 6) The same personality characteristics are found in males and females and interpretations are not different based on gender, but gender-related differences may be present and need to be considered when assessing the implications of personality characteristics (Weiner, 1998, p. 42)
• 7) Cultural differences should be analyzed when: determining the degree to which the Rorschach results represent personality characteristics, the degree to which response codes are influenced, the effect language has on response delivery and comprehension and the consequences for inferring an individual has certain personality characteristics (Weiner, 1998, p. 46)
• 8) Socioeconomic status, national origin and ethnicity do not alter the meaning of Rorschach variables, but they may have different implications for the individual (Weiner, 1998, p. 46). The modern Rorschach method is believed to be externally valid/generalizable (Weiner, 1998, p. 46)
• Traditional Reliability Evaluation:
• Establishment:
• 1) 2 blind case studies (described in the validity section)
• 2) Piotrowski believed that the Rorschach test was reliable as long as the test takers participated and weren’t already familiar with the test prior to taking it- we now know that was not the case (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 82)
• Most reliable factors:
• Of the response factors used in the scoring procedure, the following are considered some of the most reliable indicators of personality: size, location, color type and shading (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 41)
• They are less variable
• They cannot be consciously controlled
• They are not typically altered by environmental changes
• Problems:
• 1) Piotrowski believed that test analyses conducted by individuals who are more familiar with psychopathology and personality will be more thorough than analyses conducted by individuals who are less familiar with these fields thus the reliability of this test may be impacted by the users (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 82)
• 2) Observed traits are based on social relations of the test taker, so if certain traits are not important to or shared freely by the test taker, they cannot be observed or analyzed  (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 83)
• More Modern Reliability Evaluation
• 1) Interrater agreement using the Comprehensive System (Weiner, 1998, p. 25)
• Research has indicated that this system can yield relatively high interrater reliability (raters tend to code responses the same), however, specific interrater reliability coefficients were not provided (Weiner, 1998, p. 25)
• 2) Retest studies (using the Comprehensive System) with children and adults for which the retest intervals ranged from one week to three years
• 3 years time-lapse between tests:
• The consistency of 13 main variables (e.g. active movement, affective ratio, etc.) was .80 for 100 non-patient adults (Weiner, 1998, p. 25)
• The consistency of 6 main variables (e.g. passive movement, popular, etc.) was .70 for the same 100 individuals
• 1 year time-lapse between tests:
• For 50 non-patient adults, a variety of variables had reliability coefficients above .80 (e.g. pairs, reflections, etc.) (Weiner, 1998, p. 25)
• For the same individuals, a handful of variables had reliability coefficients above .70 (e.g. the Isolation Index, the Intellectualization Index, etc.)
• Problems:
• 1) No reliability coefficients were mentioned for kids, although it was suggested that they exist and are promising
• 2) Being exposed to a test more than once may lead to an increased number of responses, faster response time or other response alterations
• Test Materials:
• 10 inkblots: (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 33-34, 42)
• Standardized size, color and order in which they are presented (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 5)
• All inkblots are symmetrical
• All inkblot shapes were accidentally created that way
• These inkblots were chosen from a larger collection of inkblots because Rorschach noticed individuals gave more overall responses and a wider variety of responses when given these particular inkblots
• Some inkblots are gray, some have gray and red and others are multicolored (before 1950, the inkblots did not have color on them)
• All inkblots appear on white, glossy plates that are approx. 7 in. by 9 ½ in.
• All inkblots are presented to participants in the same position
• Believed to have form (color, size, etc.) and content
• Stopwatch:
• Discretely used by the test proctor to time responses
• The stopwatch was started when the test proctor handed the participant the inkblot and gave them brief instructions
• Traditional Test Phases (see Appendix A for additional details):
• Administration:
• Instructions + inkblots + exact responses are recorded + repeat once or twice
• The purpose of the test was not disclosed to participants before administration (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 34)
• Very rarely were participants debriefed about the purpose of the test after administration (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 34)
• Participants were usually given additional instructions if they asked questions about what they were supposed to do- such questions were typically addressed during the presentation of the first inkblot (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 35)
• Participants were sometimes encouraged with praise and a smile if they seemed insecure about their responses (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 35)
• Participants’ behavior (hesitations, pauses, differences in pitch and volume, movement in the chair, motor reactions and inkblot manipulation) should be recorded in this phase (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 35)
• Time per response should also be recorded
• Piotrowski suggested discouraging questions by being silent for a minute after presenting each inkblot and only prompting responses in the second minute if none were given in the first (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 35)
• Piotrowski suggests that the test proctor hand the inkblot back to the participant and prompt additional responses if the participant returns it in under one minute (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 36). If the participant still doesn’t provide additional responses the proctor is advised to remove it after the second minute has elapsed (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 36)
• Participants should be facing the test proctor unless it makes the participant feel uncomfortable (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 36)
• Responses for each inkblot should be repeated back to the participant (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 36)
• Scoring/tabulation: (example provided in Appendix B)
• Rorschach originally only coded for movement (M), Content (C), and Form (F). His coding scheme didn’t account for shading differences or active and passive movement (Acklin & Oliveira-Berry, 1996)
• Soon after Rorschach passed away in 1922, responses began to be coded based on 4 main scoring elements
• 1) Where the response is located
• 2) How the inkblot was perceived (the quality of the perceptions)
• 3) The content of the responses
• 4) The degree of originality
• Not all responses are equivalent (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 36). Rorschach, for example, did not place as much importance on the content of responses as he did movement (Weiner, 1998, p. 11-12)
• Some traits (e.g. D, d) fluctuate more than others (e.g. W)(Brussel et al., 1950, p. 81)
• Codes & definitions of the codes are modified from Rorschach’s original codes, such that they are more comprehensive. They are, however, consistent with Rorschach’s original codes and definitions (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 42). Responses assessed for abnormalities: abnormal forms, succession, preservation, inkblot rejection, color shock, chiaroscuro shock, abnormal content, other various abnormalities and response time (1st response to each inkblot and total response time) (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 18, 21)
• Responses assessed for Piotrowski’s 10 signs of a C.N. S. Disorder (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 9):
• 1) R: less than 15 total responses (normal is approximately 34 responses)
• 2) T: each response takes more than an average of one minute
• 3) M: responses include only one movement, if any
• 4) Cn: responses identify one or more colors
• 5) F+%: the percentage of good form is less than 75%
• 6) P%: the percentage of popular responses is less than 25%
• 7) Rpt: response repetition
• 8) Imp: providing a response when it is understood that the response is inadequate
• 9) Pix: distrust in ones ability to respond
• 10) AP: automatic phrases
• Interpretation
• Calculating + weighting + contrasting + qualitatively assessing responses
• Responses are compared to norms based on test takers’ gender and age to identify how intense certain traits are (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 80)
• Piotrowski suggests it takes at least 2 years of intense studying of the Rorschach test before one can efficiently interpret Rorschach test results using the traditional method
• 4 approaches to justifying interpretations
• 1) The Ouija Board Approach: use intuition to justify interpretations of Rorschach responses (Weiner, 1998, p. 30)
• 2) The Authoritative Approach: use opinions and recommendations of inkblot method authority figures to justify interpretations of Rorschach responses (Weiner, 1998, p. 31)
• 3) The Empirical Approach: use research evidence to justify interpretations of Rorschach responses (Weiner, 1998, p. 31)
• 4) The Conceptual Approach: use aspects of personality functioning to justify interpretations of Rorschach responses (Weiner, 1998, p. 31)
• Modern Test Phases: The Comprehensive System (Weiner, 1998)
• Despite modern approaches being available, many practitioners still use the traditional scoring and interpretation methods, which are associated with lower reliability and validity than the modern approach
• Administration: instructions have been modernized
• Scoring/tabulation: more structured scoring instruments are available (e.g. the Comprehensive System, as described earlier)
• Response characteristics to code:
• 1) Structural: characteristics of the physical inkblot (e.g. “two people”). See Appendix E for a structured response location chart
• 2) Thematic: looking beyond the structure of the inkblot and describing something that is not obviously represented by the inkblot structure (e.g. “Two people just standing there”) (Weiner, 1998, p. 36)
• 3) Behavioral: how people approach situations in which problem-solving and interpersonal skills are utilized (e.g. comments about the test tasks) (Weiner, 1998, p. 37)
• An interpretive strategy called sequence analysis can be used to identify structural, thematic and behavioral response characteristics and to help identify how the interplay between these characteristics proceeds to influence other responses (Weiner, 1998, p. 40). This process provides a summary of responses that are devised using calculations (Weiner, 1998, p. 40)
• Interpretation: interpretation is based on more structured scoring instruments & takes into account personality research involving characteristics of personality that are deemed to be related to various responses
• 1978: Exner proposed that the interpretation of results should begin with looking at summary scores for the four variables that significantly identified individual coping styles and adaptive resources: (1) Experience balance, (2) Experience actual, (3) Experience base and (4) Experienced simulation (Weiner, 1998, p. 56). This approach was not efficient when other factors influenced an individual’s functioning more than experience balance (Weiner, 1998, p.56)
• The current “Comprehensive System Search Strategy” groups Rorschach variables into clusters and identifies which order the variables within the clusters should be looked at (See Appendix F)(Weiner, 1998, p. 57)
• Seven clusters of variables were identified by Exner (via a cluster analysis) that tied structural variables to personality functions: (1) information-processing: how people observe the world, (2) cognitive mediation: how people perceive objects, (3) ideation: how perceptions are conceived, (4) control and stress tolerance: how people cope with stress and demands using adaptive resources, (5) affective features: how people handle emotional situations and express their feelings, (6) self-perception: how people see themselves and (7) interpersonal perception: how people see and connect with others (Weiner, 1998, p. 57-58)
• Special indices: Schizophrenia Index (SCZI), Depression Index (DEPI), Suicide Constellation (S-Con), Hypervigilance (HVI), Coping Deficit Index (CDI) and Obsessive Style (OBS)
• Another set of variables (that were uncorrelated and hence not a true cluster), named situation-related stress, also contribute to the interpretation of responses (Weiner, 1998, p. 57)
• Sequential search strategy: interpretations should be the same no matter which order the clusters are examined in, provided they are examined thoroughly without skipping around (Weiner, 1998, p. 67). Depending on the individual taking the test and the use of the test, it may make more sense to examine them in a particular order for insight purposes (Weiner, 1998, p. 67)
• The number of responses did not load on any of the seven clusters, so it was not included in the steps of analysis, but it does play a factor in whether or not test results are valid (<14 responses = invalid) (Weiner, 1998, p. 61)
• This system was empirically developed using information gathered via clinical experience and research connecting structural variables to personality functions (Weiner, 1998, p. 57)
• Personality style & strengths/weaknesses can be identified for use in clinical assessments using an adaptation model with six dimensions of human behavior (similar to the Comprehensive System clusters):
• (1) how people attend to experience: indicated by the location of responses, (2) how they form and relate ideas, (3) how they regulate emotion, (4) how they handle stress, (5) how they see themselves: indicated by types/characteristics/anatomy of people, animals and objects (6) how they relate to others: indicated by types/characteristics of people and animals in responses and the activity in which those people and animals engage in (Weiner, 1998, p. 105, 194-203)
• See Appendix D for a visual representation of the relationship between adaptation dimensions, comprehensive system variable clusters and personality functioning issues
• Sequence analysis allows the test interpreter to examine structural, thematic and behavioral aspects of responses in order of importance (determined by projection and card-pull)
• Any theory that is applicable can be used to make inferences about personality functioning (Weiner, 1998, p. 231)
• Response quality should be monitored because it can be affected by anxiety (Weiner, 1998, p. 236)
• Traditional training manual
• Individuals who contributed to the Rorschach training manual:
• Dr. James A. Brussel: Was a captain (turned major) in the army medical corps, chief of neuro-psychiatry at the Fort-Dix State Hospital in New Jersey and the assistant-director of the Willard State Hospital in 1950 (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2)
• Kenneth S. Hitch: was the Fort-Dix Station Hospital’s chief of psychologist, consulting psychologist in Tacoma, Washington and the Tacoma Board of Education’s director of research in 1950 (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2)
• Dr. Zygmunt A. Piotrowski: was the chief clinical psychologist at the State Psychiatric Institute in New York and was a professor at both New York University and Columbia University (Brussel et al., 1950)
• Editions:
• 1st edition: the first training manual was untitled and published in 1942 by The State Hospital Press (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2). It was comprised of two articles: (1) “The Rorschach  Method and Its Uses in Military Psychiatry” written by Brussel and Hitch and (2) “A Comparative Table of the Main Rorschach Symbols” written by Piotrowski (revised in 1947 and 1950)(Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2). The price of this training manual was 50 cents (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2)
• 2nd edition: published in 1947 and included the revised version of the articles that made up the first edition training manual, which included civilian mental health issues (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2). Note: Piotrowski retitled his article “Rorschach Compendium” most likely because he completely re-wrote it and it was thus a different article than the original (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2). The price of this training manual was 50 cents (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2)
• 3rd edition: published in 1950 and included the most current versions of the articles in editions 1 and 2 (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2). Piotrowski’s article was lengthened and altered to better teach and train others- it went from 23 to 54 pages between the 1947 and 1950 versions (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2). This edition featured 10 ink-blots, some of which were in color (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 4). The price of this training manual increased to 75 cents- mostly because it was much longer than the previous two editions (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 2)

• Modern Training Manual
• 5 editions: (1) 1974 (2) 1986 (3) 1993 (4) 2003 (5) Unsure of the date
• Each edition featured updated norms

• Advantages of the Rorschach method
• Using the Traditional Approach:
• According to Harrower:
• 1) It helps determine who is emotionally unstable and thus can make it easier to remove emotionally unstable individuals from positions that require a certain degree of responsibility
• 2) It can be used alongside IQ scores
• 3) It can help differentiate between individuals with hidden agendas and those with mental health issues and
• 4) It can help support a diagnosis of shell shock (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 4)
• According to Piotrowski:
• 5) Piotrowski believed that the personality traits captured by the Rorschach test were relatively permanent and therefore wouldn’t change much if participants took the test multiple times (Brussel et al., 1950, p.83)
• 6) It’s difficult to formulate responses that are not one’s own (Brussel et al., 1950, p. 83)
• Using the Modern Approach
• 1) The test is more standardized  higher interrater reliability
• 2) The norms have been improved
• 3) A cluster analysis was used to identify factors responses were correlated with
• Disadvantages of the Rorschach method
• Using the Traditional Approach
• According to Zubin (1965)
• 1) Not an objective method and it didn’t typically yield acceptable interrater agreement
• 2) Unsatisfactory internal consistency via test-restest
• 3) Not enough evidence for clinical validity
• 4) The scoring categories didn’t adequately relate to diagnosis
• 5) Unsatisfactory predictive validity concerning future behavior
• 6) Groups of normal individuals produced different results
• 7) The relationship between Rorschach results and intelligence/creative ability wasn’t found
• According to Fiske and Baughman (1953)
• 8) Ratio scores couldn’t be accurately interpreted because responses varied too much
• 9) The length of the method protocol alters the indices. The difference in protocol length was considered one of the biggest limitations of the Rorschach
• According to Holtzman et al. (1956)
• 10) Response interpretation was not consistent
• Using the Modern Approach
• According to Dubey (1982)
• 1) Most indices are based on the number of responses- when normal groups and groups with mental health issues were separated based on the number of responses they gave, many indices were no longer significant. This issue was addressed by the 1991 Comprehensive System, which removed the number of responses from the analysis of results (as long as at least 14 responses were given)
• 2) Interpretations of responses are still often subjective
• Additional:
• 3) Coding is still time consuming
• 4) The norms aren’t always replicable (Acklin & Oliveria-Berry, 1996)