The Rorschach Ink Blot Test - Coursework Example

Running head: THE RORSCHACH TEST The Rorschach Test [Writer’s name] [Institution’s name] The Rorschach Test Introduction Projective tests consist of a subject being shown ambiguous stimuli which require interpretation. These tests require the subject to interpret from within, which reflects the projection of inner needs and feelings onto the stimulus (Passer & Smith, 2007). The Rorschach is classified as a projective personality test where subjects are shown ambiguous stimuli in the form of 10 inkblots which allow for a variety of interpretations and responses to be recorded (Weiner, 1998). The Rorschach is highly controversial and one of the most misunderstood psychological tests (Aronow, Reznikoff, & Moreland, 1995; Lilienfeld, Wood & Garb, 2000). Analysis History . The Rorschach Inkblot Test is one of the more popular personality tests which during this test partaker is asked to relate inkblots with beliefs, things, and idea (Burl & Richard, 1998). Herman Rorschach designed it in 1961. Herman Rorschach studied three hundred psychological patients and hundred control subjects. Then in 1921 he started work on his book tilted Psychodiagnostik (Hejelle& & Ziegler 1992). This book set the foundation for the inkblot test after he experimented with more than hundred inkblots, he choose only t 10 of them as they had diagnostic value. Burt unfortunately he died a year after that. After the death the original founder, the scoring system was further improved by a few researchers, namely Samuel Beck and Bruno Klopfer. John E. Exner organized these improvements in a comprehensive system; he made sure that the scoring was statistically accurate (Exner, 2003). Till toady this scoring system of the test is used. Pros and cons The Rorschach test is a well known for it’s perosonality assessment. It is used to analyze the mind and find out their mental state. It can be even be sued to assess the learner type of the subject. The test can even help the psychologist to come to a conclusion if the particular person is typical or abnormal (Groth-Marnat, 1997). The Rorschach ink blot test is a legitimate form of personality assessment that can determine how the person views the world from their perspective, determines if the person is normal or not, and it also shows one's visual and mental perception. . It can reveal one's emotions, interpersonal relationships, and self esteem. If the example provided for the blot test is viewed by a person as two woman joining hands, their perspective would therefore be linked to interpersonal relationships (Hurt, Reznikoff & Clarkin, 1991). It could also be linked to self esteem if the person is viewing the image as a sad face, which in a way would show that the person is depressed them self. One's emotions can also be determined if the responses are analyzed and put into categories of which response leads to what characteristics. The Rorschach ink blot test is a legitimate form of personality assessment because the responses to the blot test show the person's approach to the world (Handler& Hilsenroth, 1998). This experiment could also establish if the person is normal or abnormal by comparing the majority responses with the uncommon ones. This can be used as a technique to verify if a person is insane at a mental hospital. If the insane person would probably have to give an acceptable answer in order to be acknowledged as a sane person (Hiller etal, 1999). The test could differentiate between majority answers and unusual answers as the majority would most likely be known as the usual or normal response. The Rorschach ink blot test is a legitimate form of personality assessment because the responses can verify if a person is providing a usual response or an unusual one.(Hood & Johnson, 1997). One can see an image with an in depth analysis and move into very deep thoughts whereas others cannot make anything out of the image (Hood & Johnson, 1997). The Rorschach ink blot test is a legitimate form of personality assessment because the responses can maybe show if the person is a visual learner or how deep the person can go with an image. Determining normal from abnormal, revealing one's learning skills, and determining how one approaches the world with their own viewpoint confirms that the Rorschach ink blot test is a legitimate form of personality assessment (Groth-Marnat, 1997). The Rorschach ink blot test should me more well-known in the world so it could assist psychologists reach one's mind. Cons At times, practitioners believe that the discrepancy in the total number of responses is extremely high. This makes it impossible for them to properly interpret the ratio scores (Lilienfeld, Wood & Grab, 2000). Even, the meanings of the indices tend to change it the length of the protocol is too short or long, as the relationship among Rorschach scores and the total number of responses is complicated. A lot of practitioners calculate percentage ratio in an attempt to manage the length of the protocol. According to Holtzman (1956) processes like these were extremely substandard, not just because of the non-linear relationships among R and other Rorschach's scores, even due to the rough, unstable and metric characteristics of the majority Rorschach variables. The debate over the Rorschach stems from the fact that is cannot differentiate among the Rorschach as a projective method when a qualified practitioner is using it, and a psychometric device, which gives scores having significance for personality evaluation (Aronow, Reznikoff & Moreland, 1995) Standardisation, Reliability and Validity According to Eysenck (2004) the three most useful characteristics of personality tests are standardisation, high reliability and high validity. It is these three important components that psychologists take into account when determining whether a personality test is likely to be an appropriate measure. The Rorschach has been highly criticised for its lack of scientific evidence. Even so, the Rorschach ranked third to the MMPI-2 and NEO Personality Inventory in a USA survey from 1993 to 2006 (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2005). In contrast Ganellen (2001) claims that ample evidence exist that demonstrates the Rorschach can be scored reliably and that the Rorschach variables have respectable levels of validity. Even though there are continued criticisms of the Rorschach there is supporting evidence in Butcher and Rouse (1996) that the test continues to be listed among the most frequently used methods for assessing personality in a variety of clinical settings and is often surpassed only by the MMPI-2. Recent trends have focused on the use of the Rorschach as a companion to the MMPI-2, rather than as an alternative, which allows for the integration of the strengths of the two diverse approaches (Acklin 1993; Archer & Krishnamurthy, 1993; Lovitt, 1993; Meyer, 1993; Weiner, 1998). One of the most common and well renowned psychometric tests is The Rorschach inkblot and is best suited for both clinical and forensic psychology. It is done by making use of the conscious and subconscious mind of the convictee or subject through ink blots. The standardisation of the test refers to the uniformity of procedure of administering and scoring the test (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). The inventor of the test is the person most equipped to record detailed instructions on how to administer and score the test based on the standardisation sample. The standardisation sample refers to the test being administered to a large representative sample of people in order for the significance of an individual's score to be evaluated in comparison to the scores of other people (Eysenck, 2004). The standardisation sample is imperative in order for psychologists to provide relevant feedback as a measurement or score is of little significance if the subject is unable to distinguish where on the scale this may be. The standardisation of tests could cover such items as tone of voice, answers to queries from the test taker, time limits, and facial expression when administering the test. A personality test with no standardisation leaves that particular test open for the test administrator's interpretation. This could ultimately lead to two psychologists scoring a completely different result if the test was taken by the same test taker. From this example it would appear that the selection of test should be one that has been standardised to ensure that the correct feedback can be given in relation to the norm. Whilst it would be difficult to obtain the exact same score with multiple psychologists the aim is to be as standardised as possible in order to instil confidence in the results and indeed the test itself. The reliability of a personality test refers to the consistency of scores when people are retested with the same or similar test (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997) at different times which is referred to as test-retest reliability (Passer & Smith, 2007). Likewise, the consistency can be further clarified by different examiners administering the test to the same people and is known as interjudge reliability (Passer & Smith, 2007). As cited in Weiner (2000), Rorschach assessment is a complex procedure and the effective application of the Rorschach depends on the assessor's ability to generate accurate and useful interpretations. Different examiners could therefore interpret the same responses differently which ultimately produces unreliability among examiners (Passer & Smith, 2008). The MMPI-2 allows for respondents to answer a question dishonestly and according to Eysenck (2004) this usually takes place when a respondent wishes to answer a question in a socially desirable way which will lead to unreliability as there is no definitive way to ensure the test is answered honestly. According to Anastasi and Urbina (1997) the most important aspect of any test is the validity of the test, whereby the test is an accurate measure of what it claims to measure and that the examiners know what the test measures. As stated in Eysenck (2004) both the Rorschach and TAT provide low reliability and validity due to the respondent's answers being influenced by a current mood rather than deep characteristics and the varying ways the answers can be interpreted by the examiner. Due to the unstructured nature of the tests an inexperienced examiner will produce poor validity and the subjectivity of interpretation lowers the reliability. Limitations 1. Failure to offer objective systems, which have no illogical conventions, and having high interscorer conformity. 2. Little acceptable internal consistency 3. Does not have convincing confirmation for clinical validity. 4. Individual Rorschach scoring categories rarely are related to the original diagnosis. 5. It does not have a strong predictive validity regarding the result of treatment. 6. A lot of individual differences which are present in normal subjects at times affect the results The meaning of scores The responses given by the subjects are scored with according to the level of ambiguity or combination of numerous images in the blot, the location of the response, what made the subject give the particular response , the variation between what the inkblot may look like and the response what the subject really perceives the ink blot to be , the level of mental organizing activity which may have elicited the response, and any irrational, inappropriate, or illogical aspect of responses (Burl & Richard ,1993). Form, shape, colour and movements are detriments which are scored. Like mostly Reponses to the first card is bat or a coat with arms (Butcher & Rouse, 1996). By utilizing scores for the above mentioned categories, the examiner used a few calculations in order to produce a structural summary of data. The structural summary is then analyzed against a criterion (Groth-Marnat 1997). Assessing special population groups Rorschach is usually not for the special population, they usually do not give responses according to the normal population. Assessing special populations even becomes difficulty because their anxiety levels at time sis quite high and their defense system come in to play and thus they do not yield proper or valid results (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2005). Cautions and guidelines in administration Rorschach ink blot test consist of ten cards, every card has a different symmetrical inkblot pattern. These inkblots don’t represent any specific object, but they do consist of shapes signifying physical objects. They also have different colours: only 5 cards are in black and white, 2 are mostly black and white with a particular colour, and 2 cards are completely coloured(Handler & Hilsenroth 1998) The administrator is supposed to show the subject one card at a time. He is not allowed to show any sort of reaction to the reply (Weiner, 2000). Instructions are given to the subject to respond to what he sees in the inkblot, after this the subject's responses are then analyzed in several different areas, including the part of the picture which the focused on, the amount of time the subject takes in responding, the words used in the response, originality, and how much does the subjects responses focus on colour, shading, and form (Weiner, 2000). Ethical issues in usage The test does not have much ethical issues in fact. The test results should be not disclosed and privacy should be maintained. The ethical issues only come in where the disclosure of results is needed (Ganellen, 2001). The test is highly ethical as it only asks the subject to perceive the inkblots. Test bias, inherent cultural insensitive Test biasness does at times play an important role in interruption of the scores. The person tasking the test usually interprets eth scores according the subject’s characteristics and not his score (Hiller etal, 1995). The evaluator may use personal insight for the interpretation, or may use what he thinks is right. The test is even cultural sensitive a lot of people may not perceive the ink blots as a lot of taboo topics like eastern girls may not talk about perceiving the inkblots as sexual orientated as this not part of their culture(Hood & Johnson 1997). This clearly interferes with the results. Conclusion The Rorschach ink blot test is a projective test which has high validity. Most people do not regard this test as reliable enough to assess personality. However, the fact that in the past it ahs always yield impressive results prove it’s reliability and validity. As per the above analysis the test is standardized and has a special way of administration. Like all projective test it too has it’s setbacks, but it’s advantages are more then its disadvantages. References Acklin, M.W. (1993). Integrating the Rorschach and the MMPI in clinical assessment: conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 125-13 Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological issues in ability testing. In A. Anastasi & S. Urbina, Psychological testing (7th ed., pp. 331-346). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Archer R.P., Krishnamurthy R. (1993a). A review of MMPI and Rorschach interrelationships in adult samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 277-293. Butcher, J. N., & Rouse, S. V. (1996). Personality: Individual differences and clinical assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 87-111. Eysenck, Michael W. (2004). Psychology : an international perspective. Hove: Psychology Press. Hiller, J. B., Rosenthal, R., Bornstein, R. F., Berry, D. T., & Brunell-Neuleib, S. (1999). A comparative meta-analysis of Rorschach and MMPI validity. Psychological Assessment, 11, 278-296. Hood, A. B., & Johnson, R. W. (1997). Assessment in counseling: A guide to the use of psychological assessment procedures (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Lovitt, R. (1993). A strategy for integrating a normal MMPI-2 and dysfunctional Rorschach in a severely compromised patient. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 141-147. Meyer, G.J. (1996). The Rorschach and MMPI: toward a more scientifically differentiated understanding of cross-method assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 558-578. Weiner, I. B. (2000). Using the Rorschach properly in practice and research. Journal of. Clinical Psychology, 56, 435-43. Read More

The Rorschach ink blot test is a legitimate form of personality assessment because the responses to the blot test show the person's approach to the world (Handler& Hilsenroth, 1998). This experiment could also establish if the person is normal or abnormal by comparing the majority responses with the uncommon ones. This can be used as a technique to verify if a person is insane at a mental hospital. If the insane person would probably have to give an acceptable answer in order to be acknowledged as a sane person (Hiller etal, 1999).

The test could differentiate between majority answers and unusual answers as the majority would most likely be known as the usual or normal response. The Rorschach ink blot test is a legitimate form of personality assessment because the responses can verify if a person is providing a usual response or an unusual one.(Hood & Johnson, 1997). One can see an image with an in depth analysis and move into very deep thoughts whereas others cannot make anything out of the image (Hood & Johnson, 1997).

The Rorschach ink blot test is a legitimate form of personality assessment because the responses can maybe show if the person is a visual learner or how deep the person can go with an image. Determining normal from abnormal, revealing one's learning skills, and determining how one approaches the world with their own viewpoint confirms that the Rorschach ink blot test is a legitimate form of personality assessment (Groth-Marnat, 1997). The Rorschach ink blot test should me more well-known in the world so it could assist psychologists reach one's mind.

Cons At times, practitioners believe that the discrepancy in the total number of responses is extremely high. This makes it impossible for them to properly interpret the ratio scores (Lilienfeld, Wood & Grab, 2000). Even, the meanings of the indices tend to change it the length of the protocol is too short or long, as the relationship among Rorschach scores and the total number of responses is complicated. A lot of practitioners calculate percentage ratio in an attempt to manage the length of the protocol.

According to Holtzman (1956) processes like these were extremely substandard, not just because of the non-linear relationships among R and other Rorschach's scores, even due to the rough, unstable and metric characteristics of the majority Rorschach variables. The debate over the Rorschach stems from the fact that is cannot differentiate among the Rorschach as a projective method when a qualified practitioner is using it, and a psychometric device, which gives scores having significance for personality evaluation (Aronow, Reznikoff & Moreland, 1995) Standardisation, Reliability and Validity According to Eysenck (2004) the three most useful characteristics of personality tests are standardisation, high reliability and high validity.

It is these three important components that psychologists take into account when determining whether a personality test is likely to be an appropriate measure. The Rorschach has been highly criticised for its lack of scientific evidence. Even so, the Rorschach ranked third to the MMPI-2 and NEO Personality Inventory in a USA survey from 1993 to 2006 (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2005). In contrast Ganellen (2001) claims that ample evidence exist that demonstrates the Rorschach can be scored reliably and that the Rorschach variables have respectable levels of validity.

Even though there are continued criticisms of the Rorschach there is supporting evidence in Butcher and Rouse (1996) that the test continues to be listed among the most frequently used methods for assessing personality in a variety of clinical settings and is often surpassed only by the MMPI-2. Recent trends have focused on the use of the Rorschach as a companion to the MMPI-2, rather than as an alternative, which allows for the integration of the strengths of the two diverse approaches (Acklin 1993; Archer & Krishnamurthy, 1993; Lovitt, 1993; Meyer, 1993; Weiner, 1998).

One of the most common and well renowned psychometric tests is The Rorschach inkblot and is best suited for both clinical and forensic psychology.

Read More