Rorschach Inkblot Test: Personality and Psychopathology

Overview of the Rorschach Inkblot Test

The Rorschach Inkblot Test is one of the most time-honored and widespread assessment instruments within the field of psychology. It has endured in numerous forms ever since its inception in the early part of the 20th century (Meyer & Eblin, 2012, p. 107). During its tenure, it has experienced substantial criticism as well as various deployments across a number of diverse fields and applications (Wood et al., 2003, p. 30). It is worth noting, however, that this instrument has been revised and reformed on a number of occasions to continue delivering value to researchers in various areas of psychology. Although the original Rorschach Inkblot Test is somewhat dated, its updated versions continue to provide value as a measure of personality and psychopathology.

Prior to examining the limitations, strengths, and supporting literature pertaining to the Rorschach, it is necessary to provide a brief overview of the nature of this instrument and what it yields. The basis of the test is relatively simple and aligned with the fundamentals of most projective tests. Subjects are presented with a series of images that are deliberately ambiguous in nature and tasked with identifying what those images represent. Their responses are then used as a means of determining personality characteristics.

Limitations of the Rorschach

The test is somewhat subjective in that it can encompass a number of different theories when interpreting results and discerning the aspects of personality that the examiner identifies within them. As previously noted, the instrument has undergone multiple revisions, most notably in the form of Exner's Rorschach Comprehensive System (Weiner, 1994, p. 500). There are multiple ways in which this particular revision directly addresses many of the perceived limitations of the initial version.

The criticism of the Rorschach is most succinctly summarized as follows: "The Rorschach…tends to mislabel most normal people as 'sick.' The test cannot detect most psychological disorders (with the exception of schizophrenia and related conditions marked by thinking disturbances), nor does it do an adequate job of detecting most personality traits" (Wood et al., 2003, p. 30). Additionally, there have been numerous questions about the reliability and validity of this instrument (McGrath, 2008, p. 465).

Perhaps most troubling are allegations that in the earliest part of the instrument's history — during the 1930s and 1940s — some practitioners used "tricks" (Wood et al., 2003, p. 31) to appear more insightful about subjects' personalities than they actually were. Some of these subterfuges were conducted under the guise of "blind" diagnoses, in which psychologists claimed to make accurate analyses of subjects based solely on Rorschach results (Wood et al., 2003, p. 31). By the 1960s, multiple instances of the Rorschach misrepresenting information and failing in controlled studies had been documented (Wood et al., 2003, p. 31), which reinforced these weaknesses. The cumulative effect of such failures helped spur reforms in both the perception and the structure of the Rorschach, which were partly responsible for refinements such as the Rorschach Comprehensive System.

Conclusion

In summary, there are numerous reasons why the Rorschach continues to provide utility as a measure of personality and psychopathology so many years after it was initially devised by its creator. The most salient of these pertain to the fact that most of the early limitations of this instrument have been addressed and transcended. Those limitations pertained to the subjective nature of the earliest incarnation of the instrument and to issues regarding standardization, normalization, reliability, and validity — most of which were rectified by Exner with the unveiling of the Rorschach Comprehensive System.