The Rorschach test is a psychological test in which the subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretations, complex algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine the characteristics of a person's personality and emotional function. It has been used to detect the underlying mind disorder, especially in cases where patients are reluctant to describe their thought processes openly. This test is named after its creator, Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach. In the 1960s, Rorschach was the most widely used projective test.
Although the Exner Assessment System (developed since the 1960s) claims to have overcome and often denied many criticisms of the original test system with extensive research bodies, some researchers continue to ask questions. Dispute areas include testers' objectivity, interpersonal reliability, verification and general validity of the tests, test pathology bias against larger number of responses, limited number of accurately diagnosed psychological conditions, inability to replicate test norms, their use in ordered evaluations courts, and the proliferation of ten inkblot images, potentially undoing tests for those who have been exposed to them.
Video Rorschach test
History
Using the interpretation of "ambiguous design" to judge a person's personality is an idea that goes back to Leonardo da Vinci and Botticelli. Interpretation of inkblots is very important for a game, Gobolinks , from the end of the 19th century. Rorschach, however, is the first such systematic approach. The inks were hand drawn by Rorschach.
It has been argued that the use of inkblots by Rorschach may have been inspired by German physician Justinus Kerner who, in 1857, has published a popular poetry book, each of which was inspired by unintentional ink. The French psychologist, Alfred Binet, also experimented with inkblots as a test of creativity, and, after the turn of the century, a psychological experiment in which inkblots were used multiplied, with the aim of studying imagination and consciousness.
After studying 300 mental patients and 100 control subjects, in 1921 Rorschach wrote his book Psychodiagnostics, which was the basis of the inkblot test (after experimenting with several hundred inkblots, he selected a set of ten for their diagnostic value) but he died the following year. Although he had served as Vice President of the Swiss Psychoanalytic Society, Rorschach had difficulty in publishing the book and it attracted little attention when it first appeared.
In 1927, the newly founded Hans Huber publisher bought the Rorschach Psychodiagnostic book from Ernst Bircher's inventory. Huber remains a test publisher and related book, with Rorschach a registered trademark of Swiss publisher Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG. The work is described as "a solid written piece written in dry scientific terminology".
After Rorschach's death, the original test scoring system was enhanced by Samuel Beck, Bruno Klopfer and others. John E. Exner summarizes some further developments in the comprehensive system , at the same time trying to make statistically more accurate assessments. Some systems are based on the concept of a psychoanalytic object relationship. The Exner system remains very popular in the United States, while in Europe other methods sometimes dominate, as described in a textbook by Evald Bohm, which is closer to the original Rorschach system and deeply rooted in genuine psychoanalysis principles.
Rorschach never intended inkblots to be used as a general personality test, but developed it as a tool for the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Only in 1939 the test was used as a personality projective test, whose use was always skeptical Rorschach. Interviewed in 2012 for the BBC Radio 4 documentary Rita Signer, the Rorschach Archive curator in Bern, Switzerland, suggested that far from random design or coincidence, any blot chosen by Rorschach for testing has been carefully designed to be ambiguous and "contradictory" maybe.
Maps Rorschach test
Method
The Rorschach test is appropriate for subjects from ages five to adults. Administrators and subjects usually sit side by side on the table, with administrators a bit behind the subject. Seating with the examiner and subject is used to reduce the effects of accidental cues from the examiner to the subject. In other words, side-by-side seating reduces the likelihood that the tester will inadvertently affect the subject's response. This is to facilitate a "relaxed but controlled atmosphere". There are ten official inkblots, each printed on a separate white card, about 18 x 24 cm. Every spot has perfect bilateral symmetry. Five inkblots are black ink, two black and red ink and three in color, on a white background. After the test subject has seen and responded to all the inkblots (free association phase ), the tester will then present them again one by one in the order specified for the subject to be studied: the subject is asked to note where he sees what initially he saw and what made it look like that (phase investigation ). Subjects are usually asked to hold the card and can play it. Whether the card is playing, and other related factors such as whether permission to play them are requested, can expose personality traits and usually contribute to the assessment. When the subject checks the inkblots, the psychologist writes all the subjects said or not, no matter how small. Analysis of responses recorded by test administrators using tabulation and assessment sheets and, if needed, separate location charts.
The general aim of this test is to provide data on cognition and personality variables such as motivation, response trends, cognitive operations, effectiveness, and personal/interpersonal perceptions. The underlying assumption is that one will condition external stimuli based on certain individual perceptual devices, and includes needs, basic motives, conflicts, and that this grouping process represents the processes used in real-life situations. The interpretive method is different. The Rorschach scoring system has been described as a stake system for hanging one's knowledge of personality. The most widely used method in the United States is based on Exner's work.
Administrative tests for a group of subjects, through projected images, are also occasionally performed, but mainly for research rather than diagnostic purposes.
The test administration does not become confused with the test interpretation:
Interpretation of Rorschach notes is a complicated process. It requires a lot of knowledge about the dynamics of personality in general as well as sufficient experience with the Rorschach method in particular. Proficiency as a Rorschach administrator can be obtained in a few months. However, even those who are able and qualified to become Rorschach interpreters typically remain in the "learning phase" for several years.
Features or categories
The interpretation of the Rorschach test is not based primarily on the content of responses, that is, what views the individual in ink (content ). In fact, the content of the response is only a relatively small part of the broader group of variables used to interpret Rorschach data: for example, information provided by the time taken before responding to the card can be significant (taking long periods of time can show "surprise" to card). as well as with any comments that can be given in addition to providing a direct response.
Specifically, information about the determinants (aspects of inkblots that trigger a response, such as shape and color) and location (which details of the inkblots that trigger a response) are often considered more important than content, although there is contrasting evidence. "Popularity" and "originality" responses can also be considered as basic dimensions in analysis.
Content
The purpose in coding content from Rorschach is to categorize objects that the subject describes in response to inkblot. There are 27 codes defined to identify descriptive object names. The codes are classified and include terms such as "man", "nature", "animal", "abstract", "clothing", "fire", and "x-ray", to name a few. The contents described that do not have pre-defined code must be encoded using the "content idiograph" code with the shortened code being "Idio." Items are also coded for statistical popularity (or, conversely, originality).
More than any other feature in the test, content responses can be consciously controlled by the subject, and can be generated by very different factors, making it difficult to use the content itself to draw conclusions about the subject's personality; with specific individuals, content responses can potentially be interpreted directly, and some information can sometimes be obtained by analyzing thematic trends across a range of content responses (which are only feasible when multiple responses are available), but in general content can not be analyzed outside the entire context test records.
Locations
Identifying the location of the subject's response is another element that is printed in the Rorschach system. Location refers to how much ink is used to answer questions. The administrator scores a "W" response if all inkblots are used to answer the question, "D" if the usual blot parts are used, "Dd" if unusual or unusual details are used, or "S" if white space in the background is used. W score is usually associated with the subject's motivation to interact with the surrounding environment. D is interpreted as one that has an efficient or adequate function. The high frequency response encoded by Dd shows some non-conformities in the individual. The C-coded response indicates the subject of an oppositional or uncooperative test.
Determinant
Systems for the assessment of Rorschach generally include the concept of "determinants": These are the factors that contribute to building similarity between inkblot and subject matter responses about it. They can also represent the basic attitudes of certain experiences, indicating the way the subject perceives the world. Rorschach's original work uses only form , colors and movements as determinants. However, at present, the other major determinant considered is shading , which is unintentionally introduced by poor quality inkblots printing. Rorschach initially ignored the shading, since the ink initially contained a uniform saturation, but later recognized it as a significant factor.
Forms are the most common determinants, and are related to the intellectual process. Color responses often provide a direct insight into one's emotional life. Movement and shading have been considered more ambiguous, both in definition and in interpretation. Rorschach considers motion just as the experience of actual movement, while others have expanded this defining scope, taking it means that the subject sees something "going on".
More than one determinant can contribute to the formation of subject perceptions. A combination of two determinants is taken into account, while also assessing which of them are major contributors. For example, " form - color " implies a finer impulse control than " color - form ". Indeed, from the relationship and balance between the determinant factors that personality can be most easily inferred.
Symmetry of test item
The striking characteristic of the Rorschach inkblots is their symmetry. Many have undoubtedly accepted this aspect of the image but Rorschach, as well as other researchers, of course not. Rorschach experimented with asymmetrical and symmetrical images before finally selecting the second one.
He gives this explanation for the decision:
Asymmetric numbers are rejected by many subjects; symmetry is provided part of the necessary artistic composition. It has a disadvantage because it tends to make the answer somewhat stereotypical. On the other hand, symmetry creates the same conditions for the subject of the right and left hands; furthermore, it facilitates interpretation for a particular blocked subject. Finally, symmetry allows the interpretation of the whole scene.
The impact of symmetry in Rorschach inkblot has also been further investigated by other researchers.
Exner rating system
The Exner scoring system, also known as the Rorschach Comprehensive System (RCS), is the standard method for interpreting the Rorschach test. It was developed in 1960 by Dr. John E. Exner, as a more rigorous analysis system. It has been extensively validated and shows high reliability among reviewers. In 1969, Exner published The Rorschach Systems , a brief description of what would later be called the "Exner system". He then published a study in several volumes called The Rorschach: A Comprehensive system , the most accepted description of the system.
The creation of a new system was driven by the awareness that at least five methods were linked, but were ultimately differently used at the time, with a considerable minority of testers not using any recognized method at all, basing their judgment on subjective judgments, or randomly mixing characteristics of various systems standard.
The key components of the Exner system are grouping of Rorschach variables and sequential search strategies to determine the sequence to analyze them, framed in the context of standard, objective, reliable coding and representative normative databases. This system places much emphasis on cognitive triads of information processing, related to how subjects process data input, cognitive mediation, referring to how information is altered and identified. , and ideation .
In the system, the response is scored with reference to the degree of ambiguity or synthesis of some images in the blot, the location of the response, which of the various determinants are used to generate the response (ie, what makes the inkblot look like what it says resembles), the quality of the response form faithful responses to how the actual ink looks), the content of responses (what the respondent actually sees in the blot), the mental level governs the activities involved in generating the response, and the aspects of the response are illogical, incompatible, or incoherent. It has been reported that popular responses on the first card include bats, badges, and emblems.
Using scores for this category, testers then perform a series of calculations that yield a structural summary of the test data. The structural summary results are interpreted using existing research data on personality characteristics that have been shown to be associated with different types of responses.
With Rorschach plates (ten ink dots), the area of ​​each stain distinguished by the client is recorded and coded - usually as "commonly selected" or "not specifically selected". There are many different methods for encoding area enclosures. Exner establishes an area coding system promoted by S. J. Beck (1944 and 1961). This system is in turn based on Klopfer's work (1942).
Due to its response to the form of response, the concept of "quality of form" comes from the earliest work of Rorschach, as a subjective assessment of how well the subject's response corresponds to the inkblots (Rorschach will give higher form scores to more "authentic" but good form responses "and this concept is followed by other methods, especially in Europe; On the contrary, the Exner system merely defines" good form "as a matter of word occurrence frequency, reducing it to the size of subject distance to the population average.
Performance appraisal system
The Rorschach Performance Appraisal System (R-PAS) is an assessment method created by several members of the Rorschach Research Council. They believe that Exner's scoring system requires an update, but after Exner dies, the Exner family forbids any changes to be made to the Comprehensive System. Therefore, they established a new system: R-PAS. This is an attempt to create a current, empirical, and international focus system that is easier to use than the Comprehensive Exner System. The R-PAS manual is meant to be a comprehensive tool for managing, printing, and interpreting Rorschach. This manual consists of two chapters on which the basics of assessment and interpretation are intended to be used for novice Rorschach users, followed by many chapters containing more detailed and technical information.
In terms of updated scores, the authors select only those variables that have been empirically supported in the literature. To note, the authors did not create new variables or indexes for encoding, but systematically reviewed variables that had been used in the previous system. Although all of these codes have been used in the past, many have been renamed to more valid and easy-to-understand faces. The index assessment has been updated (eg using standard percentiles and scores) to make Rorschach more appropriate to other popular personality measures.
In addition to providing coding guidance to assess the responses examined, R-PAS provides a system for encoding testee behavior during the Rorschach administration. This code of conduct is included because it is believed that the behavior exhibited during the test is a reflection of one's task performance and complements the actual response given. This allows generalizations to be made between a person's response to the card and its actual behavior.
R-PAS also recognizes that the assessment on many different Rorschach variables in each country. Therefore, beginning in 1997, Rorschach protocols from researchers around the world were collected. After formulating the protocol for more than a decade, a total of 15 adult samples were used to provide a normative basis for R-PAS. This protocol represents data collected in the United States, Europe, Israel, Argentina and Brazil.
Cultural differences
Comparing North American Exner's normative data with data from European and South American subjects shows striking differences in some features, some of which impact on important variables, while others (such as the average number of responses) coincide. For example, the texture response is usually zero in the European subjects (if defined as the need for closeness, according to the system, the Europeans will express it only when it reaches the level of desire for closeness), and there are fewer "good forms "responses, to the point where schizophrenia can be suspected if the data correlates with North American norms. Forms are also often the only determinant expressed by European subjects; while the colors are less frequent compared to American subjects, the relative color form response often goes against the color-shaped response; Since the latter tends to be interpreted as an indicator of defensive attitudes in the process of influence, these differences can result from higher values ​​associated with spontaneous emotional expression.
The difference in form quality is caused by pure cultural aspects: different cultures will show different "common" objects (French subjects often identify chameleons on card VIII, which are usually classified as "unusual" responses, compared to other animals such as cats and dogs; Scandinavia, the "Christmas Fairy" (nisser) is a popular answer for card II, and the "instrument" on the VI card is popular for Japanese people), and different languages ​​will show semantic differences in naming the same object (the figure of an IV card is often called a troll by a Scandinavian and an ogre by a Frenchman). Many of Exner's "popular" responses (given by at least one-third of North American samples are used) appear to be universally popular, as shown by samples in Europe, Japan and South America, while specifically the "human" response of IX cards, crabs or profits -profit on the X card and one of the butterflies or bats on my card seems to be the hallmark of North America.
Shape quality, popular content responses and location are the only variables encoded in Exner's system based on frequency of occurrence, and thus immediately subject to cultural influences; Therefore, interpretation of test data that is culturally dependent may not necessarily go beyond these components.
The language difference quoted means that it is very important for the test to be given in the original language of the subject or the second language which is very well mastered, and, on the contrary, the testers must master the language used in the test. Test responses should also not be translated into other languages ​​before analysis except as possible by a doctor who mastered both languages. For example, a bow tie is a frequent response to card center III details, but since equivalent terms in French are translated into "bow tie", a tester who does not appreciate the nuances of this language can codify responses differently from what is expected.
Inkblots
Below are the ten inkblots of the Rorschach test printed in the Rorschach's Rorschach Test - the Psodiagnostic Plates , along with the most frequent responses to the overall picture or detail that stand out most by various authors.
Usage
United States
Rorschach tests are used almost exclusively by psychologists. Forensic psychologists use Rorschach 36% of the time. In the case of detainees, 23% of psychologists use Rorschach to examine a child. Another survey found that 124 of the 161 (77%) clinical psychologists involved in the assessment services utilized Rorschach, and 80% of psychology graduate programs taught their use. Another study found that its use by clinical psychologists was only 43%, while it used less than 24% of the time by school psychologists.
During World War II, the chief psychiatrist of the US Army Medical Corps. Douglas Kelley and psychologist Gustave Gilbert administered the Rorschach test to 22 defendants in the Nazi leadership group before the first Nuremberg trials.
United Kingdom
Many psychologists in England do not believe in its efficacy and are seldom used. Though skeptical about its scientific validity, some psychologists use it in therapy and coaching "as a way of encouraging self-reflection and initiating conversations about the person's internal world." It is still used, however, by some mental health organizations such as the Tavistock Clinic. In a survey conducted in 2000, 20% of prison psychologists used Rorschach while 80% used MMPI.
Japanese
Shortly after the publication of Rorschach's book, his copy found its way to Japan where it was discovered by one of the foremost psychiatrists at a used bookstore. He was so impressed that he started going crazy for an exam that never waned. The Rorschach Society of Japan is by far the largest in the world and its tests are "routinely incorporated into various destinations". In 2012, the test was described, by presenter Jo Fidgen, for BBC Radio 4 Dr Inkblot program, as "more popular than ever" in Japan.
Controversy
Some skeptics consider the Rorschach inkblot pseudoscience test, as some studies suggest that the conclusions reached by test administrators since the 1950s are similar to cold reading. In the 1959 edition of the Annual Book of Mental Measurement , Lee Cronbach (former president of the Psychometric Society and the American Psychological Association) is quoted in the review: "This test repeatedly fails as a prediction of practical criteria, not in the literature to encourage dependence on interpretation of Rorschach. "Additionally, the main reviewer Raymond J. McCall writes (p.194):" Although tens of thousands of Rorschach tests have been managed by hundreds of trained professionals since then (previous reviews), and while many relationships with the dynamics of personality and behavior has been hypothesized, the majority of these relationships have never been empirically validated, although there are more than 2,000 publications on the exam. "The moratorium on its use was called for in 1999.
A 2003 report by Wood and his colleagues has mixed views: "Over 50 years of research has confirmed the final verdict of Lee J. Cronbach (1970): that some of the Rorschach scores, despite falling very little from claims made by supporters, but has 'greater validity than coincidence' (p 636). [...] Its value as a measure of mind disorder in schizophrenic research is well received.It is also used regularly in research on dependence, and, more rarely, in studies about enmity and anxiety.In addition, substantial evidence justifies the use of Rorschach as a clinical measure of intelligence and impairment of mind. "
Test material
The basic premise of this test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to ink spots that should be meaningless. Supporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that the subject's response to ambiguous and meaningless stimuli can provide insights into their thought processes, but it is unclear how this happened. Also, recent research has shown that blots are not entirely meaningful, and that patients usually respond to blas aspects that are meaningful as well as ambiguous. Reber (1985) describes the blot only as a "vehicle for interaction.." between the client and the therapist, concluding: "... the usefulness of Rorschach will depend on the sensitivity, empathy and insight of testers who are completely detached from Rorschach himself. Intense dialogue about wallpaper or carpets will do well if both parties believe. "
Illegal and invisible correlation
In the 1960s, research by psychologists Loren and Jean Chapman showed that at least some of the visible validity of the Rorschach was due to illusion. At that time, the five most commonly interpreted signs of diagnostic homosexuality were 1) the buttocks and anus; 2) feminine clothing; 3) male or female sex organs; 4) a human figure with no male or female characteristics; and 5) human figures with features of men and women. The Chapmans surveyed 32 experienced testers on the use of Rorschach to diagnose homosexuality. At this time homosexuality is regarded as psychopathology, and Rorschach is the most popular projective test. Testers report that homosexual men have shown five signs more often than heterosexual men. Despite this belief, the analysis of results suggests that heterosexual men are equally likely to report these signs, which is therefore not at all effective for determining homosexuality. The five signs, however, match the guesses students make about which image to associate with homosexuality.
Chapman investigates the source of false beliefs of the testers. In one experiment, students read a stack of cards, each with a Rorschach stain, a sign and a pair of "conditions" (which may include homosexuality). The information on the card was fictitious, although the subject was told it came from a real patient case study. The students reported that five invalid signs were associated with homosexuality, even though the card had been built so there was no association at all. Chapman repeated this experiment with another set of cards, where the association was negative; five signs never reported by homosexuals. The students still report seeing a strong positive correlation. This experiment shows that the prejudices of testers can cause them to "see" the relationship is not in the data. Chapman calls this phenomenon the "illusion correlation" and has since been shown in many other contexts.
The related phenomenon called "invisible correlation" applies when people fail to see a strong relationship between two events because it does not match their expectations. This is also found in doctors' interpretation of Rorschach. Homosexual men are more likely to see monsters on Card IV or some animals, human figures in Card V. Virtually all doctors experienced in the Chapmans survey miss these valid signs. Chapmans experimented with a fake Rorschach response in which these valid signs are always associated with homosexuality. Subjects yearn for this perfect association and even report that invalid signs, such as buttocks or feminine clothing, are a better indicator.
In 1992, psychologist Stuart Sutherland argued that this artificial experiment was easier than the use of Rorschach in the real world, and therefore they may underestimate the mistakes that testers are vulnerable. He described the continued popularity of Rorschach after Chapman's research as "a glaring example of irrationality among psychologists".
Projection tester
Some critics argue that the test psychologist should also project to the pattern. An example that may sometimes be attributed to the subjective judgment of a psychologist is that the responses are encoded (among many other things), to "Quality of Form": in essence, whether the subject's response matches how the stain actually looks. Superficially this can be regarded as subjective judgment, depending on how the testers have internalized the category involved. But with Exner's scoring system, many subjectivities are omitted or subtracted by the use of frequency tables showing how often a given response is given by the population in general. Another example is that the "bra" response is considered a "sex" response by male psychologists, but women's "clothing" response. In the Exner system, such responses are always encoded as "clothing" unless there is a clear sexual reference in the response.
Third parties can be used to circumvent this problem, but the reliability of the Rorschach assessors has been questioned. That is, in some studies, scores obtained by two independent printers do not match the high consistency. This conclusion was challenged in the study using a large sample reported in 2002.
Validity
When interpreted as a projective test, the result can not be verified. Exner's assessment system (also known as "Comprehensive System") is intended to address this, and has all but replaced many of the previous (and less consistent) scoring systems. It makes heavy use of what factors (shadow, color, outline, etc) of the inkblot leads to each person's tested comments. Disagreements about the validity test remain: while Exner proposes a rigorous scoring system, the latitude remains in the actual interpretation, and doctors' records of the test records are still partly subjective. Reber (1985) commented ".. basically there is no evidence whatsoever that the test even has little validity."
Nevertheless, there are large studies that show the utility of sizes for some scores. Some scores correlate well with general intelligence. Interestingly, one such scale is R, the total number of responses; this reveals a questionable side effect that more intelligent people tend to increase on many pathological scales, because many scales are not true for high R: if the subject responds twice as much overall, chances are some of these will look "pathologies." Also correlated with intelligence is the scale for Organization Activity, Complexity, Form Quality, and Human Image responses. The same source reported that validity has also been shown to detect conditions such as schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders; mind disorder; and personality disorders (including borderline personality disorder). There is some evidence that the Deviant Verbalizations scale is associated with bipolar disorder. The authors conclude that "Otherwise, the Comprehensive System does not appear to bear a relationship consistent with psychological or symptomatic disorders, personality traits, potential violence, or health problems such as cancer". (Cancer is mentioned because a small percentage of Rorschach fans have claimed that tests can predict cancer.)
Reliability
It is also expected that the reliability of the test can rely heavily on the details of the testing procedure, such as where the testers and subjects sit, foreword, verbal and nonverbal responses to subject questions or comments, and how responses are recorded. Exner has published detailed instructions, but Wood et al. citing many court cases where this was not followed. Similarly, the procedure for encoding responses is quite well specified but is very time consuming so they are very subject to the style of the author and publisher for the quality of instruction (as noted with one of Bohm's textbooks in the 1950s) as well as clinic workers (which will include testers) driven to take a shortcut.
The United States Court also challenged the Rorschach. Jones states that the Rorschach results "do not meet the standardization, reliability, or validity of clinical diagnostic tests, and such interpretations are often controversial ". In Country ex rail HH (1999) where under cross-examination Dr. Bogacki states under oath "many psychologists do not believe much in the validity or effectiveness of the Rorschach test" and US v Battle (2001) decided that Rorschach "lacks an objective scoring system."
Population norm
Another controversial aspect of the test is its statistical norms. The Exner system is considered to have normative scores for various populations. However, from the mid-1990s others began trying to replicate or update these norms and fail. In particular, the differences seem to focus on indexes measuring narcissism, chaotic thinking, and discomfort in close relationships. Lilienfeld and colleagues, critical of the Rorschach, have stated that this proves that Rorschach tends to "overpathologise normals". Although Rorschach supporters, such as Hibbard, point out that the high level of pathology detected by Rorschach accurately reflects the increase in psychopathology in society, Rorschach also identified half of all test participants as having "distorted thinking", a false positive rate that can not be explained by current research..
Allegations of "over-pathologising" have also been considered by Meyer et al. (2007). They presented an international collaborative study of 4704 Rorschach protocols, obtained on 21 different samples, in 17 different countries, with only 2% showing a significant increase in the perceptual and thinking disorder index, 12% increased on the depression index and hyper alertness and 13% increased on persistent stress overload - all in line with expected frequencies among non-patient populations.
Apps
This test is also controversial because of its general use in court-ordered evaluations. This controversy originated, in part, from the limitations of Rorschach, without additional data, in making an official diagnosis of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-IV). Irving B. Weiner (co-developer with John Exner of the Comprehensive System) has stated that Rorschach "is a measure of personality function, and provides information about aspects of personality structure and dynamics that make people like themselves.Sometimes information about such personality characteristics very helpful in achieving differential diagnosis, if the alternative diagnosis being considered has been well conceptualized with respect to certain personality characteristics or defining ". In most cases, however, the Rorschach test was not selected but used as one of several in a series of tests, and despite criticism of Rorschach's use in court, of 8,000 cases in which forensic psychologists use Rorschach-based testimony, the instrument's eligibility is challenged only six times, and the testimony is ruled unacceptable in only one of these cases. One study has found that trial use has increased three times in the decade between 1996 and 2005, compared with fifty years earlier. Yet others have found that its use by forensic psychologists has declined.
Exner and others claim that the Rorschach test is capable of detecting suicide.
The item protection and test ethics
Psychologists object to the publication of psychological test materials because of concerns that the patient's test response will be affected (" primed ") by previous exposure. The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that, "Publishing questions and answers for every psychological test endangers its usefulness" and called for "keeping psychological tests out of the public domain." The same statement quotes their president's statement, "The CPA's concern is not on card issuing and responses to the Rorschach test alone, which has some controversy in psychological literature and disagreement among experts, but with a larger problem of publication and dissemination of test content psychology ".
From a legal point of view, Rorschach test images have been in the public domain for years in most countries, especially those with copyright durations of up to 70 years of post-mortem aorticism. They have been in the public domain in Hermann Rorschach's native Switzerland since 1992 (70 years after the author's death, or 50 years after the cut-off date of 1942), under Swiss copyright law. They are also in the public domain under United States copyright law in which all works published before 1923 are considered to be in the public domain. This means that Rorschach images can be used by anyone for any purpose. William Poundstone, perhaps, first made it publicized in his 1983 Big Secrets book, where he also described the method of administering tests.
The American Psychological Association (APA) has a code of ethics that supports "freedom of inquiry and expression" and helps "the people in developing informed judgments". He claims that his goals include "the welfare and protection of individuals and groups with whom psychologists work", and it requires psychologists "make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and safety of the exam material". APA has also raised concerns that the dissemination of test materials may impose "a very real danger to the general public". It has not yet taken a position on the publication of the Rorschach plates but notes "there are a number of standard psychological tests deemed appropriate for a particular purpose". A public statement by the British Psychological Society expressed similar concerns about psychological tests (without mentioning any tests by name) and considered "release of material [tests] to unqualified individuals" to be abused if contrary to the wishes of the test issuer. In his 1998 book, Ethics in Psychology Gerald Koocher notes that some believers "print copies of Rorschach plates... and the list of common responses is highly unethical" for psychologists and an indication of "professional questionable consideration ". Other professional associations, such as the Italian Strategic Psychotherapy Association, recommend that even information about test objectives or any details of the administration should be kept out of the public, although "cheating" tests are practically impossible.
On September 9, 2008, Hogrefe attempted to claim copyright over Rorschach's ink stains during filing a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization against Brazilian psychologist Ney Limonge. This complaint was rejected. Further complaints were sent to two other websites containing similar information to the Rorschach test in May 2009 by Swiss law firm Schluep and Degen.
Psychologists sometimes refuse to disclose tests and test data to court when asked to do so by parties stating ethical reasons; It is said that such rejection may hinder full understanding of the process by lawyers, and hinder cross-examination of experts. Ethical standards WHAT 1.23 (b) states that psychologists have a responsibility to document the process in sufficient detail and quality to allow for reasonable examination by the courts.
Controversy occurred in the psychological community in 2009 when the original Rorschach plate and the results of research on interpretation were published in the article "Rorschach test" on Wikipedia. Hogrefe & amp; Huber Publishing, a German company that sells the edition of the plates, called the publication "highly reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia" and said it was investigating possible legal action. Due to this controversy a temporary editing filter was established on Wikipedia to prevent removal of plates.
James Heilman, an emergency room physician who was involved in the debate, compared it with the publication of eye test maps: although people are also free to memorize the eye map before the eye test, the general utility as a diagnostic tool for vision is not diminished. For those opposed to exposure, the publication of inkblots is described as "a very painful development", given the tens of thousands of research papers that have, over the years, "tried to relate the patient's response to a particular psychological condition." The controversy over Wikipedia publications from inkblots has resulted in blots being published in other locations, such as The Guardian and The Globe and Mail . Later that year, two psychologists filed a complaint against Heilman with the Saskatchewan medical licensing board, arguing that uploading the images was unprofessional. In 2012 two articles are published that show the consequences of publication of images on Wikipedia. The first studied the negative attitudes toward the tests generated during the Wikipedia-Rorschach debate, while the latter suggested that reading Wikipedia articles can help falsify "good" results in exams.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments