of a Rorschach with almost no other information
about the patient was used to assess Rorschach valid-
ity. Even when Rorschach response protocols are
submitted for analysis in this manner, however, iden-
tifying cues are often present. For example, the
Rorschach protocols of 10-year-olds may be com-
bined in one study with those of 60-year-olds.
Sometimes the protocols are sent to former teachers
or to friends so that there may be a higher-
than-usual level of agreement. Just knowing that
the protocols came from Hospital X may provide
important cues about the nature of the patients.
Other studies have used a matching technique—
specifically, the matching of Rorschach protocols
with case histories—to assess the validity of
Rorschach interpretations. However, there are also
problems with these studies. Correct matching may
be a function of one or two strikingly deviant vari-
ables. Consequently, what has really been validated?
There have even been instances in which the person
who had administered the Rorschach was subse-
quently asked to match it with the correct case his-
tory. Thus, a correct match may have been
determined by the recall of patient characteristics
observed during the testing.
Despite the questions raised about the validity
of the Rorschach, several surveys have placed the
Rorschach in a favorable light. For example, Parker
et al. (1988), in a broad survey of Rorschach studies,
found the average validity coefficient across a variety
of Rorschach scales to be .41. Also, both interjudge
reliability and test–retest reliability were in the
mid-.80s. Still, many remain critical of the quality
of the individual studies that have been cited as sup-
porting the validity of Rorschach scores (e.g., Wood
et al., 1996; Wood et al., 2003; Wood, Lilienfeld,
Nezworski, Garb, Allen, & Wildermuth, 2010).
Perhaps most important, a recent reanalysis of the
studies included in Parker et al.’s (1988) meta-
analysis arrived at a different conclusion. Garb et al.
(1998), using data from the same studies reviewed by
Parker et al., reported significantly lower validity
estimates for Rorschach scores (validity coefficient of
.29 vs. the previous estimate of .41). Further, the
revised, corrected estimate of Rorschach validity
was significantly lower than that of the MMPI
(.48). These findings, in addition to findings that
fail to support the incremental validity of Rorschach
scores (Archer & Krishnamurthy, 1997; Garb, 1984,
1998), led the authors to“recommend that less
emphasis be placed on training in the use of the
Rorschach”(p. 404). Indeed, in recent years, clinical
psychology programs have progressively offered less
training in projective techniques.
The debate over the utility of the Rorschach
in clinical assessment continues (Meyer, 1999,
2001; Wood et al. 2003). Advocates (Viglione &
Hilsenroth, 2001; Weiner et al. 2002) argue that
the Rorschach is useful when the focus is on the
unconscious functioning and problem-solving styles
of individuals. However, critics remain skeptical of
the clinical utility of Rorschach scores (Hunsley &
Bailey, 2001; Hunsley & Mash, 2007) or their
incremental validity (Dawes, 1999; Garb, 2003).Rorschach Inkblot“Method.” Weiner (1994)
has argued that the Rorschach is best conceptual-
ized as amethodof data collection, not a test.
The Rorschach is not a test because it does
not test anything. A test is intended to mea-
sure whether something is present or not and
in what quantity.... But with the Rorschach,
which has traditionally been classified as a test
of personality, we do not measure whether
people have a personality or how much
personalitytheyhave.(p.499)
Several implications follow. First, Weiner
argues that data generated from the Rorschach
method can be interpreted from a variety of theo-
retical positions. These data suggest how the
respondent typically solves problems or makes deci-
sions (cognitive structuring processes) as well as the
meanings that are assigned to these perceptions
(associational processes). Weiner calls this an“inte-
grationist” view of the Rorschach because the
method provides data relevant to both the structure
and dynamics of personality. According to Weiner,
a second, practical implication is that viewing the
Rorschach as a method allows one to fully use all
aspects of the data that are generated, resulting in a
more thorough diagnostic evaluation.PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT 241