ABILITY TESTING

Tests of Intellectual Ability

 All psychological tests are designed to measure behavior

 Hence the selection of proper tests and the interpretation of tests results require knowledge about human
behavior
 Familiarity with relevant behavioral research is needed not only by the test constructor but also by the test user.
 What can psychological research contribute to the understanding of the behavior measured by tests of cognitive
abilities or “intelligence”?

The Nature of Intelligence

 A convenient index of intelligence is the intelligence quotient or the IQ

 It expresses intelligence as a ration of mental age to chronological age:

IQ =

 MA is obtained by summing the number of items passed at each level.

(Suggested by German psychologist William Stern, adopted by Lewis Terman)

NOTE: THE IQ IS NO LONGER CALCULATED USING THIS EQUATION

 Tables are used to convert raw scores on the test to standard scores that are adjusted so the mean at each age
equals 100
 IMPORTANT
o When considering the numerical value of each given IQ, one should always specify the test from which it
was derived
o Different intelligence tests that yield an IQ differ in content and in other ways that affect the interpretation
of their scores.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS IN USING THE SYMBOL IQ:

1. Tested intelligence should be regarded as a descriptive rather than an explanatory concept

 An IQ is an expression of an individual’s ability level at a given point in time, in relation to the available
age norms
 No intelligence test can indicate the reasons for one’s performance
 Intelligence tests should be used not to label individuals but to help in understanding them.
2. Intelligence is not a single, unitary ability, but a composite of several functions.
 The term is commonly used to cover that combination of abilities required for survival and advancement
within a particular culture
 Implications:
o Specific abilities in this composite way with time and place
o In different cultures and at different historical periods within that culture, the qualifications for
successful achievement differs
o One individual varies from infancy to adulthood

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:

 To base decisions on tests alone, and especially on one or two tests alone, is clearly a misuse of tests
 Decisions must be made by persons
 Tests represent one set of data utilized in making decisions; they are not themselves decision-making instruments
 At a broader level, all tests results can be best understood within a contextual framework

DEFINING INTELLIGENCE BINET’S VIEWPOINT

 Alfred Binet defined intelligence as the capacity:

1. To find and maintain a definite direction or purpose
2. To make necessary adaptations – that is, strategy adjustments –to achieve that purpose, and
3. To engage in self-criticism so that necessary adjustments in strategy can be made

In developing tasks to measure judgment, attention, and reasoning. Binet was guided by two principles of test
construction:

Principle 1: Age Differentiation

 Refers to the simple fact that one differentiate older children from younger children by the former’s greater
capabilities
 o Binet assembled a set of tasks that an increasing proportion of children could complete as a function of
age
o Using these tasks, he was able to estimate the mental ability of a child in terms of his or her completion of
the tasks designed for the average child of a particular age, regardless of the child’s actual or
chronological age.

With the principle of differentiation, one could determine the equivalent age capabilities of a child independent of her
chronological age.

Principle 2: General Mental Ability

 Refers to the total product of the various separated and distinct elements of intelligence
 With this concept, Binet freed himself from the burden of identifying each element or independent aspect of
intelligence; he was also freed from finding the relation of each element to the whole
 His decision to measure general ability was based on practical considerations.

SPEARMAN’S MODEL OF GENERAL MENTAL ABILITY

 Binet was not alone in his conception of general mental ability. Before Binet, the idea was propounded by Francis
Galton (1869) in his book Hereditary Genius
 Working independently of Binet, in Great Britain, Charles Spearman (1904, 1927) advanced this idea;
o Intelligence consists of one general factor(g) plus a large number of specific factors
 Spearman’s general mental ability which he referred to as psychometric g (or simply g), was based on the
well documented phenomenon that when a set of diverse ability tests are administered to large unbiased sample
of the population, almost all of the correlations are positive
 This phenomenon is called positive manifold, which according to Spearman resulted from the fact that all tests,
no matted how diverse, are influenced by g.

FACTOR ANALYSIS

 To support the notion of g. Spearman developed a statistical technique called factor analysis –a method for
reducing a set of variable of scored to a smaller number of hypothetical variable called factors.
 Through factor analysis, one can determine the common variance of all factors. This common variance represents
the g factor.
 Today, Spearman’s g is the most established and ubiquitous predictor of occupational and educational
performance

Implications of General Mental Intelligence (g)

1. A person’s intelligence can best be represented by a single score, g, that presumably reflects the shared
variance underlying performance on a diverse set of tests
2. Differences in unique ability stemming from the specific task lend to cancel each others, and overall performance
comes to depend most heavily on the general factor.

THE GF-GC THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE

 Recent theories of intelligence have suggested that human intelligence can be best conceptualized in terms of
multiple intelligences rather than a single score. One such theory is called the gf-gc theory.
 According to this theory, there are two basic types of intelligence: fluid (f) and crystallized (c).
 Fluid intelligence can best thought of as those abilities that allow us to reason, think, and acquired new knowledge
 Crystallized intelligence represents the knowledge and understanding that we have acquired.

INDIVIDUAL TESTS

1. Standford- Binet Intelligence Scale

 For use from the age of two years to the adult level
 15 tests representing five major cognitive areas:
o Fluid Reasoning (FR)
o Knowledge (KN)
o Quantitative reasoning (QR)
o Visual/Spatial reasoning (VS)
o Working Memory (WM)
 1905 Binet-Simon Scale
 1908 Binet Simon Scale
 1916 Standford Binet Intelligence Scale
 1937 Standford Binet
 1960 Standford Binet
  1986 Standfod Binet (4TH edition)
 Current edition: 5TH edition, 2003

2. The Wechsler Scales original 1939)

a. Overemphasis on speed in most tests; this handicaps the older adult
b. Routine manipulation of words received undue weight in the traditional intelligence test
c. Inapplicability of mental age norms to adults; few adults had previously been included in the
standardization sample for intelligence tests
 Although both Binet and Terman considered the influence of nonintelligence factors on results from
intelligence tests, David Wechsler, author of the Wechsler scales, has been perhaps one of the most
influential advocates of the role of nonintellectiive factors in these tests.
 Throughout his career, Wechsler emphasized that factors other than intellectual ability are involved in
intelligent behavior

POINT AND PERFORMANCE SCALE CONCEPTS

 Two of the most critical difference between the Wechsler and the original Binet scale were
1. Wechsler’s use of the point scale concept rather than an age scale
2. Wechsler’s inclusion of a performance scale

THE POINT SCALE CONCEPT

 Credits or points are assigned to each items

 An individual receives a specific amount of credit for each item passed.
 The point scale offers an inherent advantage:
o It make it easy to group item of a particular content together (Binet did not do this until the 1986 version)
 By arranging items according to content and assigning a specific number of points to each item, the Wechsler
yielded not only a total overall score but also scores for each content area

THE PERFORMANCE SCALE CONCEPT

 The early Binet scale was criticized for emphasizing language and verbal skills
 Wechsler included a measure of nonverbal intelligence: a performance scale
 Consisted of tasks that require the person to do something (e.g., copy symbols of point to a missing detail) rather
than a merely answer questions
 The performance scale attempts to overcome biased caused by language, culture and education

The Wechsler Scales

 Wechsler-Bellevue Scale (1939)

o Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) (1955)
o WAIS-R (1981)
o WAIS-III (1997)
 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) (1949)
o Current edition: WISC-IV (2003)
 Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) (1967)
o Current edition: WPPSI (2002)

WECHSLER’S DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE

 Like Binet Wechsler defined intelligence as the capacity to act purposefully and to adapt to the environment
 In his words, intelligence is the aggregated or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think
rationally and to deal effectively with his/her environment
 Intelligence comprises several specific interrelated functions or elements and general intelligence results from the
interplay of these elements

WECHSLER SUBTESTS

Subtest Major function measured

Verbal Scales
Vocabulary Vocabulary level
Similarities Abstract thinking
Arithmetic Concentration
Digit Span Immediate memory, anxiety
Information Range of knowledge
Comprehension Judgment
Letter-number sequencing Freedom of distractibility
Performance Scale
Picture Completion Alertness to details
Digit symbol-coding Visual-motor functioning
Block design Nonverbal reasoning
Matrix reasoning Inductive reasoning
Picture arrangement Planning ability
Symbol research Information-processing speed
Object assembly Analysis part-whole relationships

INDIVIDUAL TESTS VS. GROUP TESTS

Individual Tests Group Tests

One subject is tested at a time Many subjects are tested at a time

Examiner records responses Subjects record own responses
Scoring required considerable skill Scoring is straightforward and objective

Examiner flexibility can elicit maximum performance

There are no safegurds
if permitted by standardization

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVATAGES OF GROUP TESTS

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Less opportunity to establish rapport, obtain

Large scale or mass testing
cooperation, and maintain the interest of the client

Any temporary condition (e.g., illness, fatigue,

Eliminate need for a one-to-one relationship
worry) is less readily detected

Greatly simplifying examiner’s role

More uniform conditions than in individual testing

Lack flexibility (individual tests typically provide
examiner to choose items on the basis of the test-
Provision of better established norms
takers’ prior performances)

Testing of large, representative sample in the

standardization process is possible

GROUP TESTS

1. Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT)

2. Raven Progressive Matrices (RPM)
3. The Culture Fair Intelligence Tests
4. Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT)
5. Purdue Non-Language Test (PNLT)
6. Goodenough –Harris Drawing Test (G-HDT)

PERSONALITY TESTING

INTRODUCTION

 Tests of mental ability were created to distinguish those with subnormal mental abilities from those with normal
abilities in order to enhance the education of both groups
 However, it is not enough to know that a person is high or low in such factors as speed of calculation, memory,
range of knowledge, and abstract thinking
  To make full use of information about a person’s mental abilities, one must also know how that person used those
abilities

THE STUDY OF PERSONALITY

 The nonintellective aspects of human behavior, typically distinguished from mental abilities are called personality
characteristics
 Personality is the relatively stable and distinctive patterns of behavior that characterize an individual and her or
his reaction to the environment

STRUCTURED PERSONALITY TESTS

 Structured personality tests attempt to evaluate personality traits, personality types, personality states, and
other aspects of personality such as self-concept
 Personality traits refer to relatively enduring dispositions –tendencies to act, think, or feel in a certain manner in
any given circumstances and that distinguish one person from another

PERSONALITY TYPES AND PERSONALITY STATES

 Personality types are general descriptions of people

o For example, avoiding types have low social interests and low activity and cope by avoiding social
situations
 Personality states are emotional reactions that vary from one situation to another

SELF-CONCEPT

 Self-concept is a person’s self-definition, or, according to Carl R. Rogers

o An organized and relatively consistent set of assumptions that a person has about himself or herself

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONALITY TESTING

 Binet and others (e.g., Terman, Spearman, Thorndlike) believed that a person’s pattern of intellectual
functioning might reveal information about personality factors
 However, specific tests of personality were not developed until World War I when there was a need to distinguish
people on the basis of their emotional well-being
 Psychologists used self-report questionnaires that provided a list of statements and required people to respond
in some way,
o e.g., “True” or “False” to indicate whether the statement applied to them

SELF-REPOR STRUCTURED PERSONALITY TESTS

 The general procedure in which the person is asked to respond to a written statement is known as the structured
or objective method at personality assessment, as distinguished from the projective method.
 A clear and definite stimulus is provided and the requirements for responding are evident and specific.
 For example, to respond “yes” or “no” to the statement, “I am happy”

STRATEGIES FOR STRUCTURED PERSONALITY TEST CONSTRUCTION

 Like measures of mental ability, personality measures evolved through several phases
o Deductive strategies comprise the logical-content and the theoretical approach
o Empirical strategies comprise the criterion-group and the factor analysis method
 Some procedures combine two or more of these strategies

Applications in Clinical and Counseling Settings

Deductive

o Logical-content also called

 Content approach
 Intuitive approach
 Rational approach
 Empirical
o Criterion-group, also called
 Contrasted –group method
 External strategy
  Empirical strategy
 Criterion-keying method
o Factor Analysis

DEDUCTIVE APPROACH CONSTRUCTING PERSONALITY TESTS

 Deductive strategies use reason and deductive logic to determine the meaning of a test response
 The logical-content method has designers select items on the basis of simple face validity
 In the theoretical approach, test construction guided by a particular psychological theory

EMPIRICAL APPROACH

 Empirical strategies rely on data collection and statistical analysis to determine the meaning of a test response of
the nature of personality
 These strategies retain the self-report features of the deductive strategies in that persons are asked to respond to
items that describe their own views, opinions, and feelings
 However, empirical strategies use experimental research to determine empirically the meaning of a test
response, the major dimensions of personality, or both
 In the criterion-group approach, test designers choose items to distinguish a group of individuals with certain
characteristics, the criterion group, from control group
 The factor analytic approach uses the statistical technique of factor analysis to determine the meaning of test
items

ALL AVAILABLE STRUCTURED PERSONALITY TESTS CAN BE CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE USE
ONE OR SOME COMBINATION OF THE FOUR STRATEGIES:

 Logical-content
 Theoretical
 Criterion-group
 Factor analytic

THE LOGICAL-CONTENT STRATEGY

 The first personality test ever developed was the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet (1920), based on the
logical-content strategy
 It was developed during World War I and published at the end of the war. Its purpose was to identify military
recruits who would likely to break down in combat

WOOD WORTH QUESTIONS:

 Items were selected from lists of known symptoms of emotional disorders and from questions asked by
psychiatrists in a screening interview
 Final from contained116 items
o Do you wet the bed at night?
o Do you usually feel in good health?
o Do you frequently daydream?
o Do you usually sleep soundly at night?
 A single score is provided a global measure of functioning

OTHER TESTS USING LOGICAL CONTENT STRATEGY

 Bell Adjustment Inventory

o Evaluated person’s adjustment in areas such as home life, social life and emotional functioning
 Bemreuter Personality Inventory
o Included items related to sex personality traits including introversion, confidence, and sociability
 Mooney Problem Checklist (1950)
o Lists problems that recur in clinical case history data and in written statements of problems listed by 4000
high school students (U.S.)

THE CRITERION-GROUP STRATEGY

 Main idea: assume nothing about the meaning of a person’s response to a test item
 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory by Hathaway and McKinley
 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 (1989)
 Sample statements
 o I like good food
o I never have trouble falling asleep
 Raw scores are converted to T scores

MMPI AND MMPI 2

 Contains a validity scale that provide information on the person’s approach to testing
o Fake bad – endorsing more items of pathological content than any person’s actual problems could justify
o Fake good – avoiding pathological items
 Like the Woodworth, the purpose of MMPI and MMPI 2 is to assist in distinguishing normal from abnormal groups
 University of Minnesota Hospital patients (n=800_ divided into eight group according to psychiatric diagnosis, and
compared with controls (n= 700) composed of relatives and visitor of the patients
 Final criterion groups:
o Hypochondriacs
o Depressed patients
o Hysterics
o Psychopathic deviates
o Paranoid
o Psychasthenics
o Schizophrenics
o Hypomaniacs

ORIGINAL VALIDTY SCALE OF THE MMPI

 Lie scale (L)

o 15 rationally derived items to evaluate naïve attempt to present oneself in a favorable light. People who
score high on L are unwilling to acknowledge minor flaws (weaknesses).
o Example: “I never lose control of myself when I drive/”
 Infrequency Scale (F)
o Items that are scored infrequency (less than 10%) by the normal population. High scored invalidate the
profile
o Example: “I am aware of a special presence that others cannot perceive.”
 K scale
o 30 ITEMS that detect attempt to deny problems and present oneself in a favorable light
o Individuals attempt to project an image of self-control and personal effectiveness

MMP I AND MMPI 2

Symbol
Number of Common interpretations of
currently in Old name
items in scale elevation
use
Validity Scales
L Lie Scale 13 Naïve attempt to face good
F K Scale 30 Defensiveness
K P scale 64 Attempt to fake bad
Clinical Scales
1 Hypochondriasis 33 Physical complaints
2 Depression 60 Depressions
3 Hysteria 60 Immaturity
4 Psychopathic deviate 50 Authority conflict
5 Masculinity-femininity 60 Masculine or feminine interests
6 Paranoia 40 Suspicion, Hostility
7 Psychasthemia 48 Anxiety
8 Schizophrenic 78 Alienation, withdrawal
9 Hypomania 46 Elated mood, high energy
0 Social Introversion 70 Introversion, Shy

CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGGICAL INVENTORY (CPI. 3RD EDITION)

 The CPI (1987) is a second example of a structured personality test constructed primarily by the criterion-group
strategy
  For 3 of the 36 CPI scales, criterion groups (men vs. women, homosexual vs. heterosexual men) were contrasted
to produce measure of personality categorized as 1) introversion-extroversion, 2) conventional vs.
unconventional, and 3) self-realization and sense of integration.
 In contrast to MMPI and MMPI 2, the CPI attempts to evaluate personality in normally adjusted individuals.
 20 scale each of which is grouped into one of four classes
o Class I: poise, self-assurance, interpersonal effectiveness
o Class II: socialization, maturity, responsibility
o Class III: achievement potential, intellectual efficiency
o Class IV: interest modes
 13 scale are designed for special purposes:
o Managerial potential, tough mindedness, creativity

THE FACTOR ANALYTICAL STRATEGY

 Structured personality tests shares one common set of assumptions

 Human possess characteristics or traits that are static, vary from individual to individual, and can be
measured
 Nowhere are these assumptions better illustrated than in factor analytic strategy

GUILFORD’S PIONEERING EFFORTS

 J.R. Guilford determined the interrelationship (intercorrelation) of a wide variety of tests and factor analyzed the
results to find the man dimensions underlying all personality traits
 Came up with the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (1956)
 10 dimensions with 30 items each

GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY DIMENSIONS

 General Activity
 Restraint
 Ascendance (leadership)
 Sociability
 Emotional stability
 Objectivity
 Friendliness
 Thoughtfulness
 Personal relations
 Masculinity

CATTELL’S CONTRIBUTION

 R.B. Cattell began with all adjectives applicable to human beings to determine the essence of personality
 Allport and Odbert (1936) reduced an adjective list from a dictionary to 4504 traits
 Cattell added to the list traits found in psychological literature: and reduced the list to 171 items
 College students rated their friendship on the 171 traits and the results were factor analyzed
 The 171 were reduced to 36 dimensions, called surface traits
 Subsequent investigations by factor analysis produced 16 distinct factors which Cattell called source traits
 In subsequent factor analysis, items that correlate highly with each of the 16 source traits were included and
those with low correlations, excluded.

THE THEORITICAL STRATEGY

 Items are selected to measure the variable or constructs specified by a major theory of personality
 These questionnaires were based on Murray’s need theory
o Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (1954)
o Personality Research Form (PRF) (1967)
o Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI) (1976)

EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE (EPPS)

 Based on the need system proposed by Henry Alexander Murray (1936)

 Edwards selected 15 needs from Murray’s theory and constructed items with content validity for each
 Edwards included a consistency scale to check on validity of EPPS results
 15 pairs of statements are repeated in identical form
TRAIT DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE JACKSON PERSONALITY INVENTORY
Social Trait Trait Description
 Anxiety Tendency to worry over minor matters
 Breadth of interest Curiosity, inquisitiveness
 Complexity Preference for abstract versus concrete though
 Conformity Compliance, cooperativeness
 Energy level Energy, enthusiasm
 Innovation Originality, imagination
 Interpersonal affect Ability to identify with others
 Organization Playfulness: systematic versus disorganized
 Responsibility Responsibility; dependability
 Risk taking Reckless and bold versus cautious and hesitant
 Self-esteem Self-assured versus self-conscious
 Social adroitness Skill in persuading others
 Social participation Sociable & gregarious versus withdrawn and a
loner
 Tolerance Broad-minded and open versus intolerant and
uncompromising
 Value orthodoxy Moralistic & conventional versus modern and liberal
 Infrequency Validity of profile

SELF-CONCEPT

 The set of assumptions a person has about himself or herself

 Q-sort Technique is based on Roger’s theory of the self
o Set of cards with self-statements are sorted into two:
 The first describes who the person really is (real self)
 The second describes what the person believes he or she should be (ideal self)
 Roger’s theory predicts that large discrepancies between the real and ideal selves reflect
poor adjustment and low self-esteem

COMBINATION STRATEGIES

 The modern trend is to use a mix of strategies for developing structured personality tests
 Indeed, most of the personality tests use factor analysis regardless of their main strategy
 NEO Personality Inventories is agood example of a test of personality characteristics that relies on a
combination of strategies in scale development

POSTIVE PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT

 Early history of personality measurement focused on negative characteristics such as anxiety,

depressions, and other manifestations of psychopathology
 Research suggests advantages in evaluating individuals’ positive characteristic to understand individual
resources
o Kabasa (1979) studied “hardiness”
o Bandura (1986) studied “Self-efficacy” – strong belief in the ability to organize resources and manage
situations

POSITIVE PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT AND THE NEO PERSONALITY INVENTORY-REVISED (NEO-PI-R)

 The developers of NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1985) used both factor analysis and theory in item development
and scale construction
 A multipurpose inventory for predicting interests, health and illness behavior, psychological well-being, an
characteristics coping styles
 Based on review of factor analytic studies and personality theory, the authors identified 3 broad domains:
neuroticism (N), extroversion (E), and openness (O). Each domain has six facets

FACETS IF EACH DOMAIN IN THE NEO-PI-R

 Neuroticism (N)
o Anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability
 Extraversion (E)
o Warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement, seeking an positive emotions
 Openness (O)
o Fantasy, aesthetics, feelings (openness to feelings of self and others), actions (willingness to try new
activities), ideas (intellectual curiosity), and values
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

 Research with the NEO has supported five dimensions (considered the minimum number of dimensions to
describe the human personality):
1. Extroversion
2. Neuroticism
3. Conscientiousness
4. Agreeableness
5. Openness to experience

THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

1. Extroversion – the degree to which a person is sociable, leader-like and assertive as opposed to withdrawn, quiet,
and reserved
2. Neuroticism – the degree to which a person is anxious and insecure as opposed to cal and self-confident
3. Conscientiousness – the degree to which a person is persevering, responsible, and organized as opposed to lazy,
irresponsible and impulsive
4. Agreeableness – the degree to which a person is warm and cooperative as opposed to unpleasant and
disagreeable
5. Openness to experience – the degree to which a person is imaginative and curious as opposed to concrete-mined
and narrow in thinking

FREQUENTLY USED MEASURES OF POSITIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS

 Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

 General Self-Efficacy Scale
 Ego Resiliency Scale
 Dispositional Resilience Scale
 Hope Scale
 Life Orientation Test-Revised
 Satisfaction with Life Scale
 Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
 Coping Intervention for Stressful Situations
 Core Self-Evaluation

PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES: INRODUCTION

PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUE HAS A LONG AND RICH HISTORY:

- Leonardo da Vinci used ambiguous figures to evaluate young art students

- William Shakespeare wrote about the projective qualities of clouds. He said, “Nothing is either good or bad, but
thinking make it so.”
- William Stern used cloud as test stimuli before Rorschach and his inkblots
- Francis Galton (1879) suggested word-association method and Kraepelin made use of them
- Binet and Henri (1896) experimented with pictures as projective devices
- Alfred Adler asked patients to recall their first memory, which is also kind of projective approach.

HERMANN RORSCHACH

- The real impetus for projective techniques can be traced to Rorchach’s classic 1921 monograph, in which he
described the use of inkblots as a method for the differential diagnosis of psychopathology
- Later, in the 1920s David Levy brought the inkblot test to America, and it was not long before Beck, Klopfer, and
Hertz all began teacing Rorchach course

MORGAN AND MURRAY

- In 1935, Christiana Morgan and Henry Murray introduced the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and in the 1938,
Murray carefully described the process of projection
- The term projective really came into popular use following L.K. Fran’s widelh discussed 1939 paper on projective
methods.

THE PROJECTIVVE HYPOTHESIS

 - Numerous definitions have been advanced for the primary rationale underling projective tests, known as the
projective hypothesis, with credit for the most complete analysis usually given to L.K. Frank (1939)
- Simply started, this hypothesis proposes that:
o When people attempt to understand an ambiguous or vague stimulus, their interpretation of the stimulus
reflects their needs, feelings, experiences, prior conditioning, thought processes, and so forth.

SIGMUND FREUD

- The concept of projection originated with Freud (1911), who viewed it as a defense mechanism by which
individuals unconsciously attribute their negative personality traits and impulses to others.
- Nevertheless, the Freudian concept of projection (classical projection) has not fare well in laboratory studies.
- Instead, most of the projective techniques can be thought of as drawing on “generalized” or “assimilative”
projection, namely, the relatively uncontroversial tendency for individuals’ personality characteristics, needs, and
life experiences to influence their interpretation (apperception) of ambiguous stimuli

NATURE OF PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUE

1. The assignment of relatively unstructured task, that is, a task that permits an almost unlimited variety of
responses.
o Examinees are forced to impose their own structure and, in so doing, reveal something of themselves
(such as needs, wishes, or conflicts).
2. Only brief, general instructions are provided. There is a freedom of response
3. Projective instruments represent disguised test procedure, in so far as test takers are rare aware of the type of
psychological interpretation that will be made of their responses.
o The method is indirect
4. There is a global approach to the appraisal personality. Attention is focused on a compose picture of the whole
personality rather than on a measurement of separate traits.
5. Projective techniques are especially effective revealing covert, latent, or unconscious aspects personality.

- Response interpretation deals with more variables.

- The more unstructured the test, it is argued, the more sensitive it is to such covert material.
- This follows from the assumption that more unstructured or ambiguous the stimuli, the less likely they are to
evoke defensive reactions on the part of the respondent.

THEORITICAL ROOTS

1. Projective method originated within clinical setting and have remained predominantly a tool for clinician
2. Some have evolved from the therapeutic procedures (such as art therapy) employed with psychiatric patients
3. Most techniques reflect the influence of traditional and modern psychoanalytic concepts
4. There have also been scattered attempts to lay a foundation for projective techniques in stimulus—response
theory and in perceptual theories of personality

- It should be noted that the specific techniques need not be evaluated in the light of their particular theoretical
slants or historical origins
- A procedure prove to be practically useful or empirically valid for reasons other than those initially cited to justify
its introduction

PRINCIPAL ADVANTAGESOF MOST PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES

A. Their capacity to bypass or circumvent the conscious defenses of respondents, and

B. Their capacity to allow clinicians to gain privileged access to important psychological information (e.g., conflicts,
impulses) of which respondents are not consciously aware.

MAJOR SUBTYOES OF PROJCTIV TECHNIQUES

- (BASED ON LINDZEY’S (1959) TAXONOMY)

1. Association
2. Construction
3. Completion
4. Arrangement/Selection
5. Expression

ASSOCIATION PROJECTIVES TECHNIQUES

- Examples:
o Rorschach Inkblot Test
 (Respondents are shown 10 symmetrical inkblots and are asked to say what each look like to
them)
 o Hand test (
 Respondents are shown various pictures of moving hands, and are asked to guess what each
hand “might be doing”).

CONTRUCTION PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES

- Examples:
o Draw-A-Person Test
 (Respondents are asked to draw a person on a blank sheet of paper, and are then asked to draw
another person of the opposite sex from the first person drawn).
o Thematic Apperception Test
 (Respondents are shown pictures of ambiguous social situations and are asked to tell as story
concerning the characters in each picture).

COMPLETION PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES

- Examples:
o Washington University Sentence Completion Test
 (Respondents are presented with various incomplete sentence stems (e.g., “if my mother…”) and
are asked to complete each stem).
o Rosenweigh Picture Frustration Study
 (Respondents are shown cartoons of various frustrating situations (e.g., being accidentally
splashed with water by a passing car) and are asked how they would respond verbally to each
situation).

ARRANGEMENT/SELECTION

- Examples:
o Standi Test
 Respondents are shown photographs of individuals with different psychiatric disorders, and are
asked which patients they most and least prefer).
 Luscher Color Test (Respondents are asked to rank order different colored cards in order of
preference).

EXPRESSIONS PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES

- Examples:
o Projective Puppet Play
 (Children are asked to play the roles of other individuals (e.g., mother, father) or themselves
using puppets)Handwriting analysis)
o Handwriting analysis
 (individuals are asked to provide spontaneous sample of their handwriting

A WORD REGARDING TERMINOLOGY

- The term projective “techniques” or “instruments” are used rather than “projective tests” because most of these as
used in daily clinical practice do not fulfill the traditional criteria for psychological tests

FEATURE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS

1. Standardized stimuli and testing instructions,

2. Systematic algorithms for scoring responses to these stimuli
3. Well calibrated norms for comparing responses with most of other individuals

The absence of these features, particularly 1 & 2, renders the literature on certain projective techniques difficult to
interpret, because some investigators have used markedly different stimuli, scoring methods, or both, across studies.