Rorschach Inkblot Test the Rorschach

Rorschach Inkblot Test

The Rorschach test was developed by Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach. It was originally published in 1942 under the name "form interpretation test" in his book Psychodiagnostics. Rorschach passed away shortly after this publication and his colleagues renamed the test in his honor. The test is still used today all over the world, however there have been numerous criticisms launched against its reliability and validity. Regardless, the Rorschach test continues to be an international staple of psychological evaluation.

Content, Purpose and Structure

The Rorschach Method, of which the primary instrument is the Rorschach Inkblot test, is based on the theory of projection. This theory essentially posits that individuals react to experimental stimuli (such as the inkblots) in a way that reveals their inner selves and projects their authentic personalities. The instrument consists of ten standardized inkblots, five of which are in black and white, and five of which are in color. The clinician presents these images, one by one, to the patient, and asks him what he sees. The patient then describes whatever object or image that the inkblot brings to mind, and this is supposed to reveal personal details about his psyche.

According to Harriman (1946) there are four inquiries the clinician is to ask in association with the patient's responses to the inkblots: "First, were they in response to the whole blot or to its details? Second, what elements in the blot determined the response, those related to form, movement, color or shading? Third, what associations were inspired? Fourth, were the responses common or unusual?" (p. 654).

Based upon the responses to these inquiries, the clinician's job is to equate them with psychological meaning, in the form of a "psychogram." A psychogram, according to Shakow (2006) is derived from the total scores of the four inquiries described above, "which takes the interrelationship of these various kinds of responses into account, that is the individual record is considered as a whole, not as a set of isolated scores. On the bases if this psychogram, considerable information about fundamental personality characteristics is made available" (p. 27). Although the responses are analyzed based on separate factors focusing on frequency, sequence and reciprocity, they are interpreted as an interactive whole.

Administration and Scoring Guidelines

Despite widespread controversy regarding the usefulness of the Rorschach test, Bornstein (2005) has identified seven validated systems for scoring it. These are: The Rorschach Prognostic Rating Scale (RPRS); The Rorschach Technique for Assessing Formal Thought Disorder; Concept of the Object; The Rorschach Oral Dependency Scale; the Barrier and Penetration Rorschach Scoring System; The Pripro Scoring System and the Lerner Defense Scale. Bornstein claims that each of these scoring system supports the validity of the Rorschach test in different ways, and disparages researchers such as Lovitt (2004), who have mistakenly tried to apply Exner's Comprehensive System (CS) as a method of validation.

Evaluation of Reliability and Validity

The reliability and validity of the Rorschach test have been questioned at length. Some scholars complete disparage the entire concept, while others base their assessment of the instrument on how certain variables are inserted into the equation. For example, according to Daly (2005) psychologist Sigmunt A. Piotrowski devised a list of ten variables that can either strengthen or weaken the validity of the Rorschach test. One of these variables is related to how much the patient knows about what certain responses are likely to mean. For example, if the patient is aware that if he equates every inkblot with a theme of violence or sexuality that he is going to appear mentally unstable, he will likely censor or alter his responses. As Daly (2005) explains, "The more the subject cannot differentiate between the desirable or undesirable answers the greater the validity. This is found to be essentially true on the Rorschach Test" (p. 670).

Another variable that affects validity is the amount of spontaneity involved in the administration of the test. According to Daly (2005), "Freedom of association is necessary and should be full. Those who cannot interpret the blots are very inhibited and this can be considered a part of personality, inhibition in social situations. Such behavior tells us something about the person and his inability to think and act in a free fashion. The purpose of the test then can cause the subject to withhold information or unfettered thought" (670).

Other researchers, such as Juni (1993) believe that instead of a focus on free association, the validity and reliability of the Rorschach test can be enhanced by offering multiple choice answers. In other words, instead of simply asking the patient what he sees in the inkblot, the clinician will say something like 'To you does this image look more like a person, an animal, a flower, or a food?' Juni (1993) asserts that this approach reduces the need for "trained judges" to interpret the results, and also provides a sense of standardization that maximizes the projective content.

The phenomenon known as the "expectancy effect" is also pertinent to issues of validity and reliability. The expectancy effect is based on the idea that the administrator of the test consciously or subconsciously emits signs of how he expects the subject to respond. For example he may raise his eyebrows while waiting for a response, which could in turn have an influence on how the subject answers. According to Silverstein (1993) this is a particularly important consideration in relation to the Rorschach test. The author describes an experiment by Masling in the 1960s which "demonstrated that subjects' Rorschach responses could be influenced by the subtle differential reinforcement of types of responses by the test administrator. This raises the possibility, in the absence of adequate controls, that differences in Rorschach responses between hypnotized and nonhypnotized individuals may be due, at least in part, to covertly communicated expectations about how hypnotized subjects should respond" (p. 13).

Strengths and Weaknesses

Ultimately, scholarly conjectures on the reliability and validity of the Rorschach test vary as considerably as the possibilities of responses to the inkblot cards. Accordingly, the same holds true for its strengths and weaknesses. For almost every supporter who lauds the test's usefulness in an applied setting, there is a critic completely disparaging it. For example, Butcher and Rouse (1996) assert "Much of the strength of the Rorschach method in contemporary assessment comes from the broad use of the Exner Comprehensive System (Exner 1991, 1993, 1995; Exner & Weiner 1994), which provides a more reliable and objective basis for interpretation than was available prior to its introduction" (p. 90). On the contrary, Bornstein (2005) reports numerous problems with directly connecting the Rorschach test to Exner's CS scoring model, stating, for example, "in contrast to the approach embodied in the Comprehensive System, the Rorschach is best viewed as a theory-driven evaluation of the content and structural organization of an individual's representational capacities, rather than an atheoretical, empirically-based test" (p. 109).