RORSCHACH APLICACION ESTUDIANTES UNIVERSITARIOS METODOLOGIA

Renewed debate over the scientific status of Rorschach assessment has erupted in psychology. This paper outlines a somewhat different critique. The authors state that the critics who attack the Rorschach's Comprehensive System on scientific grounds only have a strong argument if one accepts their narrow premises about what legitimizes an assessment device. Constructivist psychology's emphasis on the Rorschach as a meaning-making task highlights and amplifies idiographic and meaning-focused approaches to assessment and psychotherapy. It is stated that moving in a more meaning-based and less norm-obsessed direction can help the Rorschach reclaim its reputation, utility, and theoretical status.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 1993

Psychological Assessment, 2001

Comments are made about the articles comprising the first round of the Special Series on the Rorschach. G. Strieker and J. R. Gold (1999) and D. J. Viglione (1999) praised the Rorschach, but they consistently failed to cite negative findings. R. M. obtained results that provide modest support for the Rorschach, but one of his data sets is flawed. J. B. Miller, R. Rosenthal, R. F. Bornstein, D. T. R. Berry, and S. reported the results of a meta-analysis, but, among other problems, their coders were not blind to the results of all the studies. J. Hunsley and J. M. Bailey (1999) made a strong case for concluding that there is no scientific basis for using the Rorschach. Recommendations are made for resolving the Rorschach controversy.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 1996

Although :he Rorschach :est has demonstrated significan! refinements in relizbiliry, vhlidiry; and stai~stical power as ii :esul! of the procedura! standardization arid scoring innovations introdaced by Exner.3 Com?rehensive System, the issue of Rorschach interrater reliahiliry remaics cnexpiorcd. This article examines :he sychcmetrjc focndatiorrs of Rorschach interratcr reliability and applies notions From applied behavioral anaiysis to the treatment of Rorschach data. We. empirically compare 3 mechods of quantifying inrcrraeer agreement. their accuracy in estimating interrater agreement, and efficiency in reducing error ir: Rorschach research. Results indicar.e :hat the magnitude of differences between methods of qcantifyi~g interrater agreeneat 2nd the associated reductions of error are significant. We propose a standard method for quantifpng interrater agreemefir i ! : Rorschach resea:ch

This study presents the results of an exploratory bibliometric " topical " analysis with regard to mainly primary research regarding the Rorschach published in journal articles 2000-2016. The major aim is to a) determine the scope and breadth of investigatory areas most emphasized by researchers during this time frame, and b) prompt more advanced bibliometric study of the extant Rorschach literature in order to map the structure of scholarship and research domain regarding this popular assessment method. The database PsycINFO was selected to obtain the pool of references based on a " keyword " search of the term Rorschach. The search identified a total of 838 peer-reviewed articles from 2000 to 2016; of these, 747 were determined to be mostly " primary " articles and served as the data-set for the analysis. The author tagged each article with a topical descriptor and maintained a scoring template based on frequency counts across categories. The analysis identified 29 topical categories which represented at least 1% of the total distribution. The most prevalent researched topics were (in rank order): Norms, psychotic states, eating disorders, historical aspects, psychosomatic factors, treatment planning/outcome, aggression/hostility, personality, psychodynamic issues, depression, and personality disorders. Neglected areas of research were noted such as, assessment training, differential diagnosis, anxiety states, racial/ethnic differences, and social desirability. The focus on norms/normative comparisons was quite apparent. The potential impact of editorial preference/bias was discussed and limitations of the study were noted. Based on this analysis, it appears that recent Rorschach scholarship is a) not cohesive in character, and b) reflects diverse research domains representing disparate research interests. Hence, despite an extensive repository of literature, the Rorschach remains an emerging area of study with an opaque sense of direction for future research.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 2007

Journal of Personality Assessment, 2007

Eastern Journal of Psychiatry, 2021

Researches investigating cross-cultural and ethnic group differences on projective tests are relatively scarce. However, significant differences in relation to acculturation, socialization, and the very different cultural subgroups process cognitively and emotionally, had documented. A number of studies have shown that popular responses are associated with cultural background, which is likely to reflect common contribution of the group. This study provides information on how Indian adult non patients' gives variety of popular responses on the Rorschach test administered and scored by following Beck system. The present research is an effort to generate normative data for proper responses in Indian context.

2015

Among the projective methods of psychological assessment, the relevance of the Rorschach method stands out in the investigation of personality, albeit without normative references in the Parisian School for adolescents in Brazil. This study addresses this gap by developing normative standards of the Rorschach method (Parisian School) for this age group, evaluating specificities of production associated with sex, age and school system. The Rorschach tests were individually administered to 180 students aged from 15 to 17 years old, with typical signs of development. Data considering the 54 Rorschach's variables were descriptively and inferentially examined. The main average results were: (a) productivity: R = 17.7; (b) modes of apperception: G = 35.0%, D = 33.4%, Dd = 30.3% and Dd = 1.1%; (c) determinants and formal indexes: F% = 54.5%, F+% = 55.6% and F+ext% = 57.3%; (d) predominant content: A% = 51.0% and H% = 20.9%; (e) Ban = 17.0%. Specificities of production according to sex,...

Journal of Personality Assessment, 2016

Learning to code the imagery, communication, and behavior associated with Rorschach responding is challenging. Although there is some survey research on graduate students' impressions of their Rorschach training, research has not identified which coding decisions students find to be the most problematic and time-consuming. We surveyed students to identify what they struggled with most when learning coding and to quantify how difficult it is to learn how to code. Participants (n = 191) from the United States, Brazil, Denmark, Israel, and Italy rated 57 aspects of coding using a 4-point scale that encompassed both the time required to code and the subjective difficulty of doing so. Mean ratings for coding in general indicated that students considered the overall task challenging. Ratings also revealed that students struggled most with Cognitive Special Scores, Determinants, and extrapolating from the tables to code Form Quality for objects that were not specifically listed. The findings offer suggestions about how to improve the guidelines for some of the more difficult variables and where it is most necessary to focus teaching time. Taking these steps may help the new student in learning the Rorschach.