Rorschach inkblot test

Introduction
The Rorschach test also known as the Rorschach inkblot test, the Rorschach technique, or simply
the inkblot test is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and
then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both. Some
psychologists use this test to examine a person's personality characteristics and emotional
functioning. It has been employed to detect underlying thought disorder, especially in cases
where patients are reluctant to describe their thinking processes openly. The Rorschach inkblot
test is a type of projective psychological test created in 1921 with the publication of
Psychodiagnostik by a Swiss psychologist named Hermann Rorschach. In the 1960s, the
Rorschach was the most widely used projective test in a national survey in the U.S. the
Rorschach was ranked eighth among psychological tests used in outpatient mental health
facilities. It is the second most widely used test by members of the Society for Personality
Assessment, and it is requested by psychiatrists in 25% of forensic assessment cases, usually in a
battery of tests that often include the MMPI and the MCMI-III In surveys, the use of Rorschach
ranges from a low of 20% by correctional psychiatrists to a high of 80% by clinical psychologists
engaged in assessment services, and 80% of psychology graduate programs surveyed teach it.
The test consists of ten figures printed on ten separate cards, all of which “fulfill certain special
requirements as well as general ones”. (Rorschach, 1921). Five cards are black and white called
achromatic while the other five cards are colored called chromatic.

History of the Rorschach test

Hermann Rorschach grew up in Switzerland.Hermann Rorschach did not make it clear where he
got the idea from the test. However, like most children of his time, he often played the popular
game called Blotto (Klecksographie), which involved creating poem-like associations or playing
charades with inkblots. Rorschach enjoyed the game so much that his classmates nicknamed him
"Klecks," the German word for "inkblot." The inkblots could be purchased easily in many stores
at the time. It is also thought that a close personal friend and teacher, Konrad Gehring, may have
also suggested the use of inkblots as a psychological tool. Rorschach's interest in inkblots
continued into adulthood. When Eugen Bleuler coined the term schizophrenia in 1911,
Rorschach took interest and wrote his dissertation about hallucinations (Bleuler was Rorschach’s
dissertation chairperson).While studying patients with schizophrenia in medical school,
Rorschach observed that, when asked what they saw in the inkblots, the patients gave responses
much different from those of his friends. He wondered if the inkblots could be used to create
profiles of different mental disorders. Perhaps people with depression interpreted the images
differently than those with anxiety or schizophrenia or no mental illness. He made a brief report
of this finding to a local psychiatric society, but nothing more came of it at the time. It was not
until he was established in his psychiatric practice in Russia’s Krombach hospital in Herisau in
1917 that he became interested in systematically studying the Blotto game. Rorschach used about
40 inkblots in his original studies in 1918 through 1921, but he would administer only about 15
of them regularly to his patients. Ultimately he collected data from 405 subjects, 117 of whom
were not psychiatric patients. Each person was presented with a card and asked, "What might this
be?" This was repeated with as many as 15 different cards per subject. Rorschach didn't analyze
what the subjects saw, but rather the characteristics of what they reported, including if they
focused on the image as a whole or on a smaller detail, or if they took a long time to provide an
answer. For example, one card shows an image often interpreted as depicting two people. If the
subject took a long time to respond, he or she might be revealing problems with social
interactions.

In 1919 and 1920, he tried to find a publisher for his findings and the 15 inkblot cards he
regularly used. However, every published balked at publishing all 15 inkblots because of printing
costs. Finally in 1921, he found a publisher the House of Bircher willing to publish his inkblots,
but only 10 of them. Rorschach reworked his manuscript to include only 10 of the 15 inkblots he
most commonly used. The printer, alas, was not very good at being true to the original inkblots.
Rorschach’s original inkblots had no shading to them they were all solid colors. The printer’s
reproduction of them added shading. Rorschach reportedly was actually quite pleased with the
introduction of this new addition to his inkblots. After publishing his monograph with the
inkblots, entitled a Form Interpretation Test, he died in 1922 after being admitted to a hospital
for abdominal pains. Rorschach was only 37 years old and had been formally working on his
inkblot test just four years.

The Rorschach Scoring Systems

Prior to the 1970s, there were five primary scoring systems for how people responded to the
inkblots. They were dominated by two the Beck and the Klopfer systems. Three other that was
used less often were the Hertz, Piotrowski and the Rapaport-Schafer systems. In 1969, John E.
Exner, Jr. published the first comparison of these five systems entitled The Rorschach Systems.
It has been extensively validated and shows high inter-rater reliability. The findings of Exner’s
ground breaking analysis were that there actually weren’t five scoring systems for the Rorschach.
He concluded that the five systems differed so dramatically and significantly, it was as if five
uniquely different Rorschach tests had been created. It was time to go back to the drawing board.
Given Exner’s disturbing findings, he decided to undertake the creation of a new, comprehensive
Rorschach scoring system that would take into account the best components of these five
existing systems, combined with extensive empirical research on each component. A foundation
was established in 1968 and the significant research began into creating a new scoring system for
the Rorschach. The result was that in 1973, Exner published the first edition of The Rorschach:
A Comprehensive System. In it, he laid out the new scoring system that would become the new
gold standard (and the only scoring system now taught).
Introduction to Rorschach Plates
Rorschach test consist a series of ten Plates of 24x17cm size with inkblots printed on them. In
the series of ten plates five are achromatic, two plates are black and red; and the remaining three
plates are “Polychromatic” in combination of green, blue, orange and pink blots. The card no, I,
IV, V, VI & VII (five cards) are printed in black which are called as Black and White Cards or
Achromatic Cards. The remaining cards: II, III, VIII, IX, & X (five cards) contain two or more
colors. These are called colored cards or chromatic cards.

Administration of Rorschach test

The Rorschach test is appropriate for subjects from the age of five to adulthood. The
administrator and subject typically sit next to each other at a table, with the administrator slightly
behind the subject. Side-by-side seating of the examiner and the subject is used to reduce any
effects of inadvertent cues from the examiner to the subject. In other words, side-by-side seating
mitigates the possibility that the examiner will accidentally influence the subject's responses.
This is to facilitate a "relaxed but controlled atmosphere". There are ten official inkblots, each
printed on a separate white card, approximately 18 by 24 cm in size. Each of the blots has near
perfect bilateral symmetry. It is the position of the card at which a subject produces a response. It
is also called Orientation. The Rorschach plates are presented to a subject in top card positions,
however a subject is free to rotate the card and view it in any position. An inkblot serves as the
stimulus for a subject to associate. The nature of stimulus changes with each card position. The
stimulus in top position is different from the stimulus in bottom or any other position. The retinal
image changes with every change in the card position. You may appreciate it by holding a
Rorschach plate in various positions and see the change in the stimulus with the change in card
position. A Rorschach examiner is required to record all card positions from the subject’s
relative position. There are four options to record card positions.

1. Top (↑)

2. Bottom (↓)

3. Left (←)

4. Right (→)

Materials Required for Administration

1. Rorschach Plates: The standard set of 10 Rorschach plates

2. Location Chart: A printed single sheet of paper containing 10 Rorschach Images. These are
available separately from the test supplier.

3. Response Sheet: A specially designed full scape plain sheet of paper with defined columns.
You need to prepare it for yourself as per the scheme mentioned below. The meanings of
acronyms used are provided at appropriate place in the administration section.

4. Colored Ink Pen Set: You could take a set of 6 colored ink pen set may be sketch pen or
gel pen. You will need them to mark blot areas on the location chart.

5. Digital Stop Watch: You could use your mobile set if it has a stop watch or a stop watch of
any make. The wrist watch is not recommended. You will need to record timings during
administration of the Rorschach Test.

6. Rorschach Test Manual: Any manual including this one and according to the preferred
scoring system would do.
.
Preliminary Preparation:
1. Establish rapport with the subject

2. Collect adequate history.

3. Conduct an interview to record the mental status of the subject

4. Handle worries and queries of the subject regarding test and any aspect of the situation

Seating Arrangements:
1. You need to have at least one table and two chairs for the assessment.

2. Get the subject sit on your right hand side chair

3. Do not allow any observer, third person or any family member in the room during test
administration.

Instructions
The purpose of the instructions is to establish a consistent set in the minds of the subjects being
tested. The basic points to be covered are that the patient will be shown ten non-representational
stimuli and asked to report all associations to them. The form we use is approximately as
follows:

"I'm going to show you ten cards, each containing a picture of an inkblot. I'll give them to
you one at a time. I'll ask you to look at each card and tell me what it looks like. Spend as much
time as you like on each card but be sure to tell me everything that occurs to you." If the subject
fails to give an association and tries to return the first card in less than two minutes, the examiner
is to say, "Give yourself plenty of time. Most people see several things on each card."

If the subject gives only one response to the first card and spends less than two minutes
searching for additional responses, the examiner is to say: "Give yourself plenty of time. Most
people see more than one thing on each card." This urging procedure is to be repeated, if
necessary, on the second card, but not subsequently.

Free association (Response phase)

It is recommended that you should allow yourself with sufficient space to learn the test. Feel
free to explore your own ways. Do not get panicky at any stage for committing errors. Remain
comfortable in your learning. For about 10 administrations you should remain in a learning
mode. After establishing the rapport, hand over Card No. I to the subject and ask “what might
this be” No detailed instructions are required. Never give a clue to the subject that he could see
animals/birds/plants and so on. Also do not tell the subject that he could change the card position
to produce responses. Verbatim, no probing, silence by the examiner is the rule. As soon as you
hand over the card to the subject mark Card Number on Response Sheet. Remember that Card
Numbers are marked in Roman Numerals I to X. After seeing the card, if subject said that;

“I don’t see anything there” then you only said the subject Take your time, we are in no hurry
(everyone can find something). If you take your time and look some more, I think you’ll find
something else too.

Response time and total time should be noticed. RT1 (Reaction time to first response) means the
time elapsed between presentation of a card to the subject and production of first response.

Inquiry phase
After the test subject has seen and responded to all of the inkblots, the tester then presents them
again one at a time in a set sequence for the subject to study: the subject is asked to note where
they see what they originally saw and what makes it look like that. The purpose of the inquiry is
to obtain any necessary further information about the subject's responses for the purpose of
scoring the record after associations have been obtained to all ten cards. We choose to defer the
inquiry until after the free association phase is complete because to introduce it after the first
card tends to make subjects more cautious. It is usually best for the tester to minimize any
defensiveness or anxiety the subject might feel by taking the responsibility on himself for
needing additional information and by carefully avoiding the implication that the subject's
performance has been inadequate or faulty. A second principle is to obtain any necessary
additional information with a minimum of biasing structure being introduced; avoid suggesting
or encouraging the use of specific justifications. At the same time, do be sure to inquire about
each element of the percept. In general, we begin the inquiry as follows;

“Ok, we’ve done them all. Now we are going to go back through them.it won’t take long. I want
you to help me see what you saw. I’m going to read what you said and then I want you to show
me where in the blot you saw it and what is there that make it look like that, I can see it too. I’d
like to see it just like you did, so help me now. Do you understand?”

Response;

It is a petty flower.

INQUIY

E: (Repeat response).

S: Yes that is the stem and here are petals.

E: You mentioned that it is pretty.

The tester should specifically avoid asking the patient to trace the outline of the percept (biasing
toward form), and asking about the importance of specific variables (e.g., "Was the color
important?").

Scoring method of Rorschach test

Rorschach images were initially tested in the clinical atmosphere. The use of ink blot psychology
upon mental retardates, normal, artists, scholars and other persons of the known characteristics
has provided critical data. The controlled studies gave birth to categories of responses in various
psychiatric syndromes and resulted in numerous scoring systems. However, most of them have
location, determinants, content, form quality and popularity as their significant categories.

Location (where it is?)

When you respond to Rorschach images, you may focus on any of the following areas:
1- The whole areas of the inkblot pictures (W)

2- The common details of the Rorschach images (D)

3- The unusual details of the inkblot pictures (Dd)

4- White spaces of the inkblot pictures (S). A white space area is used in the response (scored
only with another location symbol, as in WS, DS, DdS).

Whatever location you focus upon, counts differently for your personality analysis.

Determinants (what make it look like that?)

The determinants of your responses to the Rorschach images include:

1- Form

1. F Use of Shape or Outline of the Inkblot Picture (F)

2. F+ Excellent Match of percept and the inkblot image (F+)

3. F- Poor Match of percept and the ink blot picture (F-)

2- Movement (M)

M- Human movement response. Used for responses involving the kinesthetic activity of an
human or an animal or fictional character in human like activity.

FM- Animal movement response. Used for responses involving the kinesthetic activity of an
animal. The movement perceived must be congruent to the species identified in the content.
Animal is reported in movement not common to their species should be coded as M.

m- Inanimate movement response. Used for responses involving the movement of inanimate,
inorganic, or insensate objects.

3- Color

C- Pure color response. Used for answer based exclusively on the chromatic color feature of the
blot. No form is involved.

CF- Color form response. Used for answers which are formulated primarily because of chromatic
color feature of the blot. Form feature are used but are of secondary importance.

C’F- Achromatic color form response. Used for response which are created mainly because of
black, white, or gray feature clearly used as color. Form feature are used but are of secondary
importance.
FC’- Form achromatic color response. Used for answers which are based mainly on the form
feature. The achromatic feature, clearly used as color, are also included but are of secondary
importance.

4- Shading – texture

T- Pure texture response. Used for answers in which the shading component of blot are translated
to represent a tactual phenomenon, with no consideration to the form feature.

Content (what is it?)

The handling of content varies from one scoring system of the inkblot psychology to another.
However, there are still some standard features among all of them. The broad scoring categories
include:

1- Human figures (H). For responses involving a whole human form.

2- Body parts of the human figures (Hd). Such as an arms, head, leg, fingers, feet, the lower
part of the person, a person without a head.

3- Animal figures (A). For responses involving a whole animal form.

4- Animal details (Ad). For responses involving an incomplete animal form, such as the hoof
of a horse, claw of the lobster, head of a dog, animal skin.

5- Nature. Such as sun, moon ,planet, sky, water, ocean, lake, river, ice, snow, raindrop, night,
storm, fog etc.

Popularity

Popularity, in the inkblot psychology, means how many people given the same kind of responses
in any given session. When you provide the same type of responses, your answer is considered
accessible and is expressed with ‘P. However, when you give original, imaginative and creative
responses, your answers are weighed in the section ‘O.'

Once the entire protocol is coded, the ink blot psychologist computes many summary scores that
form the basis for your personality analysis. For example, when F+ percentage falls below 70%,
there is possibility of severe brain impairment or intellectual deficit. Some psychologists
consider it an index for ego strength.
Interpretation
Test administration is not to be confused with test interpretation. The interpretation of a
Rorschach record is a complex process. It requires a wealth of knowledge concerning personality
dynamics generally as well as considerable experience with the Rorschach method specifically.
Proficiency as a Rorschach administrator can be gained within a few months. However, even
those who are able and qualified to become Rorschach interpreters usually remain in a "learning
stage" for a number of years. The interpretation of the Rorschach test is not based primarily on
the contents of the response, i.e., what the individual sees in the inkblot (the content). In fact, the
contents of the response are only a comparatively small portion of a broader cluster of variables
that are used to interpret the Rorschach data: for instance, information is provided by the time
taken before providing a response for a card can be significant (taking a long time can indicate
"shock" on the card). as well as by any comments the subject may make in addition to providing
a direct response.
Each response can be described by its what, where & why characteristics & it is at this point that
Rorschach analysis & interpretation begins. Many specific scoring system have been developed
& the most commonly used ones are those of Samuel.j.Beck & Bruno Klopfer and Exner. In all
the scoring system scores for each response is given on the basis of the following characteristics:
1. Its location, 2. The determinants used in forming the response, 3. The level of accuracy, 4.
Its contents. For e.g., if a patient says BAT to card 1 than it is coded WF+ AP here, W means the
whole blot & F means form, + means accurate response, a means animal, p means popular
response. Each response is conducting these dimensions & then total is obtained for each
category. Each response represents a particular aspect of psychological functioning but the
interpretation depends upon the responses & how they relate to each other. If there is a balance in
first three categories i.e., location, determinants & accuracy it indicates the stable personality-
cognitive characteristics of the patient. The responses given in Rorschach test are less controlled
by our conscious & they are spontaneous & automatic responses & there is a less control of
conscious mind. The area chosen indicates that the subject cognitive orientation it tells us
whether the patient or the subject integrate the experience or segregate them. “W” Whole blot
“D” Large & commonly aggregated areas “d” Smaller but usual details “dd” Tiny or rare details
“S” The subject sees the card in reverse figure and background and respond towards spaces
instead of inked area or black areas. It tells us about subject abstract knowledge or is the limited
to conventional categories. It also tells us whether subject gives importance to trivial & unusual
details. If the subject gives sufficient & accurate W response then he shows a capacity for
abstract thinking & integration. Rorschach analysis & interpretation depends not only on
particular score but its relation to other variables, quality of the response are also taken into
consideration. If the response, the subject gives, covers the entire ink blobs, it is called a "W-
response" (W for whole). Adult test persons score on average 38% as "W-responses". They are
usually in the range 29% - 46%. The opposite is "D-responses", in which the test person may
interpret only a part of the inkblot. High "W" percentage indicates creativity, while low "W" rate
indicates depression. A healthy record should show an overall balance among the location score.
If there is a shift in subject style of giving response it must be considered as an emotional
response to a particular card. If a subject is selectively not attending to particular position of a
card & if that is of affective & sexual significance that shows the area of conflict. Gross thinking
disorder can be seen in confused or confabulated responses such as DW response. This tendency
is seen in impulsive people and usually found in schizophrenia. Another confabulated response is
PQ it means that the subject has given response keeping in mind only the position on the card.

Movement responses
Seeing movements will be interpreted as expressions of imagination. Therefore it maybe wise to
describe, what we see, as something that walks, runs, dances, flies, swims, falls and so on.
Animals in motion will often indicate a dynamic way of solving problems. The movement
responses are of particular interest because the responses are immobile. M is scored when the
subject experience movement regarding a human being or animal or inanimate object. M is a
measure capacity for fantasy & inner reflection. If M responses are M+ means it indicates
creative thinking. M indicates delusion. High M score indicates that a person is imaginative well
equipped intellectually, capable of delaying action & giving more weightage to fantasy rather
than a particular thought or an action.

Color responses
Responses which implies colors will indicate emotions. Note that five of the cards are black and
white, and five contains colors. If, for example, one says that the two persons in card II are
Christmas goblins, because they have red caps, then you have given a color response. Color
responses are related to the emotional life of the individual. If the subject has given FC response
it means that his affects are modulated & socialized If the responses are pure this shows lack of
intellectual capacity, impulsive, hyper stimulant, minimal logic & to person can leap into action
without minimal thought & logic. The balance between the FC, CF & C is the focus of
interpretation as well as the relationship of all the C responses to F & M is also evaluated. Some
subjects are proved to color shock whenever they are first confronted with color blots with
tendency is seen in neurotic individuals. Shading responses are often related with anxiety & the
use of achromatic colors.

Shadows responses
Interest in shadows will indicate depression and a feeling of loss of control.

Surface Structure responses

Interest in surface structure indicates a need for emotional connection with others. Many surface
structure responses will indicate a need for care. Surface structure means if the surface is said to
be hard or soft, rough or smooth, and so forth.

Form- color responses

If in a response both form & color is being used then it is being which is more dominating. The
accuracy of the response is being marked by giving the symbol + or – In this category the
examiner can get the variety of responses and here his judgment is the most important. The
responses related with form tell us about an individual concern with external realities. The
responses related to form also shows ego control.

Form responses
High proportion of F responses indicates that the person is literal, factual & colorless & has little
capacity for spontaniety, emotional warmth & fantasy. If the F responses are well in extreme
than it shows a person who is rigid & who does not show feelings. If a person has given very low
perception of F responses & if they are inaccurate- also then it shows that the person is
impulsive. It shows emotional dominance & has low capacity of logical thinking. If a well
integrated person the three quarters of the F responses are the accurate ones.

Content
The score describe in this category that what is the content of the response such as human, part
of human, animal, part of animal, nature, object, clothing, anatomy, sex, food etc. To a lay man
the content is most obvious & most important quality of the response or for the examiner it is of
the least concern. Content scores are related with educational, cultural, vocational & other
background factors. The analysis of content score give us a some score about personality
structures, personal interest, concerns & conflicts of the subject. The richness of content give us
an idea about variety of interest of the subject in various issues & topics & stereotypes. Contents
can result from limited intelligence, experience, anxiety, inhibition, rigidity, or conflict of the
patient.

Reliability of Rorschach test

It is also thought that the test's reliability can depend substantially on details of the testing
procedure, such as where the tester and subject are seated, any introductory words, verbal and
nonverbal responses to subjects' questions or comments, and how responses are recorded. Exner
has published detailed instructions, but Wood et al.cites many court cases where these had not
been followed. Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are fairly well specified but
extremely time-consuming leaving them very subject to the author's style and the publisher to the
quality of the instructions (such as was noted with one of Bohm's textbooks in the 1950s as well
as clinic workers (which would include examiners) being encouraged to cut corners. United
States courts have challenged the Rorschach as well. Jones v Apfel (1997) stated that Rorschach
"results do not meet the requirements of standardization, reliability, or validity of clinical
diagnostic tests, and interpretation thus is often controversial". In State ex rel H.H. (1999) where
under cross-examination Dr. Bogacki stated under oath "many psychologists do not believe
much in the validity or effectiveness of the Rorschach test" and US v Battle (2001) ruled that the
Rorschach "does not have an objective scoring system. Reliability depends on the ability to
achieve a given measurement consistently (Weiner & Greene, 2008). Viglione and Taylor
(2003) specifically examined this issue using the Comprehensive System. They reported that in
their own study, among 84 raters evaluating 70 Rorschach variables, there was a strong inter-
rater reliability, particularly for the base-rate variables. They also reviewed 24 previously
published papers, all reporting various inter-rater reliabilities. Most of these studies reported
reliabilities in the range of 85% to 99%. Aside from inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability is
another important consideration. Exner (2009) reported reliabilities from .26 to .92 over a 1-year
interval considering 41 variables; four of them were above .90, 25 between .81 and .89, and 10
below .75. However, the most unreliable variables were attributed to state changes. It was
further noted that the most relied upon factors, ratios and percentages, were among the most
reliable. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Comprehensive System can yield high reliability
when used under the conditions applied in these studies.

Validity
When interpreted as a projective test, results are poorly verifiable. The Exner system of scoring
also known as the "Comprehensive System" is meant to address this, and has all but displaced
many earlier (and less consistent) scoring systems. It makes heavy use of what factor (shading,
color, outline, etc.) of the inkblot leads to each of the tested person's comments. Disagreements
about test validity remain: while the Exner proposed a rigorous scoring system, latitude remained
in the actual interpretation, and the clinician's write-up of the test record is still partly
subjective.Reber (1985) comments ".. there is essentially no evidence whatsoever that the test
has even a shred of validity."

Nevertheless, there is substantial research indicating the utility of the measure for a few scores.
Several scores correlate well with general intelligence. One such scale is R, the total number of
responses; this reveals the questionable side-effect that more intelligent people tend to be
elevated on many pathology scales, since many scales do not correct for high R: if a subject
gives twice as many responses overall, it is more likely that some of these will seem
"pathological". Also correlated with intelligence are the scales for Organizational Activity,
Complexity, Form Quality, and Human Figure responses. The same source reports that validity
has also been shown for detecting such conditions as schizophrenia and other psychotic
disorders; thought disorders; and personality disorders (including borderline personality
disorder). There is some evidence that the Deviant Verbalizations scale relates to bipolar
disorder. The authors conclude that "Otherwise, the Comprehensive System doesn't appear to
bear a consistent relationship to psychological disorders or symptoms, personality characteristics,
potential for violence, or such health problems as cancer". (Cancer is mentioned because a small
minority of Rorschach enthusiasts have claimed the test can predict cancer.) Validity depends on
the ability of a test to measure the constructs that it is purported to measure (Wiener & Greene,
2008). Validity in this case can be evaluated by comparing the Rorschach with clinical data or
with other established tests of personality. Weiner (2001), for example, stated that the
Rorschach has a validity effect size “almost identical” to the MMPI (Weiner, 2001, p. 423).
Groth-Marnat (2009, p. 391) has pointed out that results of validity studies on the Rorschach
have been mixed, but are confounded by various factors including the “type of scoring system,
experience of the scorer, and type of population.” Early studies produced validity scores of .40
to .50, but later studies found scores as low as 0.29. However, such studies were further
confounded by variables such as age, number of responses, verbal aptitude, education, and other
confounding factors that were not controlled. More recent studies of validity have met with
mixed results. Smith et al. (2010) evaluated the validity of the Rorschach in assessing the effects
of trauma using a different system, the “Logical Rorschach” developed by Wagner (2001, as
cited in Smith et al., 2010). They found “equivocal” findings, but indicated that the LR “may
have some validity in the assessment of trauma-related phenomena.” Wood et al. (2010)
evaluated the Rorschach using a meta-analysis of 22 studies including 780 forensic subjects, in
an attempt to separate psychopaths from nonpsychopaths. They reported a mean validity
coefficient of 0.062 using all variables, and a validity of 0.232 using the Aggressive Potential
index. They concluded that their findings “contradict the view that the Rorschach is a clinically
sensitive instrument for discriminating psychopaths from nonpsychopaths.” (Wood et al., 2010,
p. 336). Another result was reported by Lindgren, Carlsson, and Lundback (2007) in which they
found no agreement between the Rorschach and a self-assessed personality using the MMPI-2.

Norms
Another controversial aspect of the test is its statistical norms. Exner's system was thought to
possess normative scores for various populations. But, beginning in the mid-1990s others began
to try to replicate or update these norms and failed. In particular, discrepancies seemed to focus
on indices measuring narcissism, disordered thinking, and discomfort in close relationships.
Lilienfeld and colleagues, who are critical of the Rorschach, have stated that this proves that the
Rorschach tends to "overpathologise normals". Although Rorschach proponents, such as
Hibbard, suggest that high rates of pathology detected by the Rorschach accurately reflect
increasing psychopathology in society, the Rorschach also identifies half of all test-takers as
possessing "distorted thinking", a false positive rate unexplained by current research. U.S norms
published by Exner. Resent research has revealed that norms cannot be used from one country to
other and differences within the same cultural group are also be founded. Norms developed by
D’Netto and Rubey reported differences in the response of military personnel as compare to the
normative civilians.

Reliability and validity summary

 Lack of standardized role for administration and scoring.

 Poor inter rater reliability.
 Lack of adequate norms.
 Unknown or weak validity.

Critical Evaluation
The Rorschach testing is quite problematic in a way. Inkblots used in the testing must be
considered truly ambiguous in order to have a non biased testing. A patient might interpret the
ink blots in a way that defined him in a certain manner, but who’s to say that the therapist
conducting the test is correct? Certainly another therapist can’t be used to assess the answers of
the therapist. The process would never end. Experts invented standardized interpretations of each
sort of answers, to save the need of interpretation of an interpretation individually. Both content
and form are standardized. For example, a patient who sees half-human or half-animal figures
show that he is on the brink of schizophrenic withdrawal from people, according to Dawes – 148.
Because it’s a projective test, it’s not scientific. Someone calling it scientific would also have to
be ready to defend interpreting dreams as a scientific method. So, it’s an unprovable assumption
that a simple inkblot test will lead the therapist to the center of the patient.

Merits of Rorschach test

 Rorschach test is considers to be excellent at bypassing a person conscious resistance.
 The Rorschach purported high resistance to faking.
 Easy to administration. The card can be easily handled and total administration time is
typically 50 minutes.

Demerits of Rorschach test

 Validity is quite variable across different scoring categories and formulas.
 Typically multiple scores and formulas are derived from the Rorschach response, some of
which have relatively good validity, and some of which are moderate, controversial or
even nonexistent.
 Error can potentially be introduced from many different direction, like scoring error, poor
handling of subtleties of interpretation.
 Incorrect incorporation of the implication of age and education, examiner bias.
 Previous lack of single standardized administration and scoring system.
 Single alternation in wording, rapport and encouragement can significantly alter the
number and types of response.
 In summary Rorschach is difficult to evaluate because of its complexity, its frequent
frequency and considerable variability related to validity of its variables.
References

1. Exner Jr., John E.: "Obituary: Samuel J. Beck (1896–1980)", "American Psychologist", 36(9)

2. Kumar N, Verma, Romesh. Textbook of Statistics, Psychology & Education. p. 225. ISBN
978-81-261-1411-5.

3. Exner, John E. (2002). The Rorschach: Basic Foundations and Principles of Interpretation:
Volume 1. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-38672-8.

4. Harry Bakwin; Ruth Mae Morris Bakwin (1960). Clinical management of behavior disorders
in children. Saunders. p. 249. The Rorschach Test consists of 10 inkblots, printed on a white
background and mounted on cardboard 7 by 9 inches”

5. Giuseppe Costantino; Richard H. Dana; Robert G. Malgady. (2007). TEMAS (Tell-Me-A-

Story) assessment in multicultural societies. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. p. 213. ISBN
978-0-8058-4451-1.

6. Alfred M. Freedman; Harold I. Kaplan; Benjamin J. Sadock (1972). Modern synopsis of

Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. p. 168. The Rorschach test consists
of 10 symmetrical inkblots printed on a white background.

7. Gardner M, Lois B.M, Theodore M.N, (1931). Experimental social psychology: an

interpretation of research upon the socialization of the individual. Harper & Brothers. It consists
of ten irregular but symmetrical ink blots, five of them in blacks and grays, and five partially in
colors, on a white background.

8. Book News. 1897. p. 143. Retrieved 10 August 2013.

9. McCarthy Woods, J. (2008). The History of the Rorschach in the United Kingdom.
Rorschachiana, 29, 64-80. doi:10.1027/1192-5604.29.1.64

10. Journal of personality assessment (1958) Volumes 22–23; Page 462.

11. Lowrey, Lawson G, (1946) American journal of orthopsychiatry, Volume 16 American

Orthopsychiatric Association pg 732.

12. Buros, Oscar K, (1975) Personality tests and reviews: including an index to The mental
measurements yearbooks, Volume 1. Gryphon Press, pg Page 411.

13. Gacono, Carl B., F. Barton Evans (2007) "The Handbook of Forensic Rorschach
Assessment" pg 83.

14. Lilienfeld, S.O., Wood, J.M., Garb, H.N. "The scientific status of projective techniques,
Psychological Science in the Public Interest v. 1, pp. 27–66, 2000".
15. Hibbard, S. "A Critique of Lilienfeld et al.'s (2000) The Scientific status of Projective
Techniques, Journal of Personality Assessment v. 80, pp. 260–271, 2003".

16. Rorschach Test: Discredited But Still Controversial. July 31, 2009.

17. Meyer, G.J., Erdberg, P., & Shaffer, T.W. "Toward international normative reference data for
the Comprehensive System, Journal of Personality Assessment v. 89(S1), S201–S206, 2007".

18. Viglione D (1999). "A review of recent research addressing the utility of the Rorschach".
Psychological Assessment. 11 (3): 251–265. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.251.

19. Eysenck, Michael W. (2004). Psychology : an international perspective. Hove: Psychology

Press. p. 458. ISBN 978-1-84169-360-6.

20. Weiner, Irving B. (2003). Principles of Rorschach interpretation. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum. ISBN 978-0-8058-4232-6.

21. Anthony D. Sciara; Barry Ritzler. "Rorschach Comprehensive System: Current issues".
Rorschach Training Programs, INC. (RTP). Retrieved 7 December 2013.

22. Dana, Richard H. (2000). Handbook of cross-cultural and multicultural personality

assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN 978-0-8058-2789-7.