Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
Projective Testing:
A Review of The Rorschach and The Thematic Apperception Test
Zachary Waters
Shepherd University
1
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
2
Abstract
Projective Testing is a very important way of understanding what a client is going
through, and what a client deals with by use of their own perception. There are two types
of projective tests that have been used by many different clinical psychologists: the
Rorschach test and the Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT. These tests are clear examples
of projective testing that were used constantly, until not too long ago. Now, the Rorschach
and TAT have become mostly obsolete; unreliable and no longer valid. How can two widely
known psychological tests suddenly become unreliable, and how come they’re still popular
among the common public? The following paper on the projective tests known as the
Rorschach and TAT explains and analyzes them in detail. They will both be compared and
contrasted by their uses in the field of psychology and what they can accomplish within the
field of clinical psychology. After reading the rest of the paper, the reader will become more
familiar with testing methods, and most likely gain insight as to why it is so important to
test clients frequently.
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
3
Testing has been used throughout the history of psychology, let alone the field of clinical
psychology. Many forms of testing have brought new theories as well as new methods of
teaching and conducting research. Clinical psychologists focus on two different approaches that
help to assess their clients. These two forms help to distinguish how a client or a group of clients
can be treated within a given situation. The two forms of psychological testing are known as the
nomothetic and ideographic approaches. When using a nomothetic approach, a therapist assumes
that most people are similar, therefore seeing people as a whole. The ideographic approach is
quite different from nomothetic. Instead of seeing people as a whole, a therapist who practices
the ideographic approach sees a person for who he/she really is: an individual. Because the
person is an individual and cannot speak for the rest of society, the student believes an
ideographic approach is a very appropriate way to deal with clients. The difference made by
Tallent (p.5) reiterates the note in personality assessment that Allport (1937, 1961) noticed many
years ago involving nomothetic and ideographic approaches of personality assessment. As
described by Allport, the nomothetic method has intentions to findings of common laws. In
differentiation, an ideographic method relates to demanding studies of the distinctive assets of
the distinct paradigm. Bellak (1954) has also commented on the application of the nomotheticideographic difference with regards involving projective methods. Society is made up of many
different unique individuals. When a member of society breaks down, and is in need of
psychological help, a therapist must abide by the client’s wishes and needs. When conducting an
ideographic approach, a clinical psychologist, or someone of the same experience, must present
testing through projection, hence, projective testing. The following paper is a brief summary on
the nature of projective testing, as the student will focus on several projective tests that are still
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
4
used by clinical psychologists today. Projective testing is critical when perceiving an individual’s
personality, and must be tailored to the client in order to receive valid and reliable results.
Since the dawn of projective techniques, psychologists have dedicated much energy to the
construction and utilization of various methods for evaluating “deeper layers” of personality.
There have been impressive results that have been obtained with the use of these instruments that
have led to a multiplying of projective techniques, most of which are seen with interest and
authorized by confirmation. The initial, indiscriminating approval of projective testing fabricated
studies that were mostly focused on the characteristics of such clinical populations as
delinquents, psychotics, and organics (Masling, 1960). In general, the theory was built on the
fact that shows a projective test as single-minded as that of an X-Ray (Frank, 1939), unhinging
evidence concerning the client with any way of being influenced by the individual who managed
the test, the method of management, or the setting in which it was conducted. As Cronbach
(1956) said it, "Test research has been dominated by the Galtonian view that the test is a sample
of the subject's responses to a standardized nonpersonal stimulus" (p.175).
However, the concept of “character structure” (Harder, 1979), or style, is imperative when
accepting both of standard behavior and compulsive behavior. The concept of character style has
originated from “ego-psychological theory” (Harder, 1979), mentioning typical styles of “ego
operation” (Green, 1967), which is, moderately lasting, oversimplified repetitions of
performance that can sustain thru many conditions and throughout many inner situations
(Shapiro, 1965). So what’s to be said is this: “character” is rather steady associations of complex
interconnected personality traits, which includes noticeable motivational requirements,
individual coping devices and defense mechanisms, perception and cognitive styles, individual
affects, and occasional interactional repetitions (mirroring the individual’s suppressed objective
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
5
associations). As already a steady association of traits, the present character structure works in
order to deduce incomplete understanding within a safe and self-perpetuating style, and, thru
numerous conditions, it regulates reliable conduct outlines and keeps an optimistic affect manner
of principal “self-representations” (Green, 1967; Shapiro, 1965). Therefore, character style “has
three chief functions: manage anxiety, provide adaptive means of attaining goals, and maintain
positive self-esteem” (Harder, 1979). These wide-ranging meanings of behavior structure make a
vital subject within all studies of personality theory, whether it is of standard or clinical numbers
(Lubin, et.al., 1984).
Research that uses projective testing to provide important material that involves character
structure usually involves the organized calculations of a single, vital character element, and as
an example, object interactions on at least one test, and that’s without involving an index to any
specific kind of character style. In turn, Mayman and Faris (1960) studied association archetypes
and the level of object relations in initial memories, while studies that have been conducted by
Krohn (1973) and Urist (1977). Employing different methods, studies conducted by Harder
(1979) required to weigh one specific character style past a variety of many projective tests. The
study used The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and Rorschach test. Harder’s study appeared
inconclusive, as his awareness of elements pointed to other clinically imperative links of the
same style. More importantly is that his aim was conducted by the very tests that perceive reality
through individual behavior as well as personality. The student will now focus on one of the two
projective tests covered within the rest of the paper: The Rorschach Test.
In 1992, Tallent styled the Rorschach test by claiming it “an instrument with polymorphous
potential” (p.50). What was meant was that the test is an apparatus that may be used to either get
results as one does on a regular psychometric test or may be used to trigger the person’s
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
6
ideographic observations of the individual and others from a “phenomenological frame of
reference” (Aronow, et.al., 1995). In order to add to Allport’s division of the nomothetic and
ideographic approaches (p.1), it is important to individualize between the perceptual and
substance approaches of the Rorschach. For those who often approve of the perceptual approach
stress the significance of characteristics of how the subject perceives, which using the Rorschach
could reveal. These perceptions could include setting, form level, and, most importantly,
determinants. And for others who tend to stress content approach, they observe subject
interpretations as a key component. These two different approaches of the Rorschach test work
together to create what are now the “three distinct approaches to the Rorschach: the perceptualnomothetic, the content-nomothetic, and the content-ideographic (the fourth possible approach,
perceptual-ideographic, has yet to become known)” (Aronow, et.al., 1995).
The perceptual-nomothetic approach of the Rorschach has origins within interpretations
brought in by none other than its creator in his text Pschodiagnostik (1921/1942), where he
emphasized scores, especially the perceptual parts. “In scoring the answers given by subjects, the
content is considered last. It is more important to study the function of perception and
apperception” (Rorschach, 1921/1942, p.19). However, Hermann Rorschach, following the
publication of Psychodiagnostik, started to lean more to a constituent and projective approach.
An associate of Rorschach’s, Roemer (1967), later explained that they used to debate some
qualified facts of projective against perceptual methodologies. They put together a competition
where Roemer extracted a projective examination on an inkblot procedure, with Rorschach
putting together a description of personality that was based upon a conventional perceptual study
of the same subject of examination. The descriptions of personality that resulted had to be
handed over to a woman who was close to the subject examined. The woman chose the
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
7
projective analysis, as it was more accurate than the perceptual analysis. Rorschach valued the
woman’s decision, so he voluntarily gave consent to proceed with content analysis, a “decision
diametrically opposed to the opinion which he had expressed in his book” (Roemer, 1967,
p.187). From then on, Hermann Rorschach’s tests were much more naturally projective than they
were previously. In a lecture he made in 1922, he mentioned that his case study started the
beginning of optimistic approach to content analysis.
Hermann Rorschach integrated classifications to be recorded (human, animal, etc.), which
he labeled as the “simple content categories” (Aronow, et.al., 1995). Starting sometime in the
1940s, numerous, expressive content measures have been introduced, including the “Elizur
scales of Anxiety and Hostility” (1949). Because of the scales’ insufficient reliability, most
likely triggered by the psychometric insufficiencies of the Rorschach test itself (Wade, et.al.,
1978), they are not recommended for clinical-use as nomothetic measures (Aronow, et.al., 1995).
In the content-ideographic method, the psychologist tends to focus more on the substance of
responses and expressions that follow as a way to access the exclusive mind of each and every
individual, especially with regard to the idea of a self-concept.
The Rorschach Inkblot test has recently become a topic of significant scientific
controversy. The current criticisms of the Rorschach have been focusing on essential problems
such as “scoring reliability, test-retest reliability, validity, incremental validity, clinical utility,
effects of method variance, cultural diversity, and accessibility of research results” (Wood,
2000). James Wood et.al. (2000) reference an article by Sol Garfield (1947). Garfield had been
awarded high respects as a scholar, and his influences in the field of clinical psychology as a
profession and a scientific process have been copious. In his article, the reader may discover a
common combination of three prominent characteristics that are still in many Rorschach studies
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
8
up until now. First, the article shows sets of vivid outcomes that verify the usefulness of the
Rorschach for analytic reasons. It expresses the agreement of Rorschach-based findings, most
chiefly “for schizophrenia or psychoneurosis” (Garfield, 1947), and findings that were found by
the psychiatric employees of two different clinics. Just a small number of calculations that were
centered on the article show the Rorschach-based findings for 75 clients showed a .67
relationship with schizophrenia diagnoses, and a .70 relationship with psychoneurosis diagnoses.
If the validity numbers conveyed were part of a Rorschach study of schizophrenia today, they
could possibly stir powerful disbelief. In the 1940s, these statistics may have seemed like cause
for reassurance rather than skepticism.
The next report is the existence pertaining to organizational errors that look blatant, but
that’s due to a fifty-year time difference. The overseer and scorer of the test was both the writer
and experimenter, and was aware of the hypotheses of the analysis. It is recognized that “the
failure to blind Rorschach administrators can introduce ultimate effects and delicate forms of
corroboration into the testing situation” (Exner & Sendin, 1997; Masling, 1960). Moreover, even
though the commentary (p.376) declares that the writer of the experiment was not aware of
patients’ records (“with a few unavoidable exceptions”), he would have a chance to have
communication and inspection during the session of the test. It’s tough to throw out the
likelihood that the experimenter had been given non-Rorschach signs with regards to the
“patients’ psychotic” (Garfield, 1947) standings. Lastly, the records make it known (p.376) that
the medical crew that put together the standard findings were aware ahead of time of the writer’s
initial preparations, established by the Rorschach. Obviously, this is a example of “criterion
contamination” and can cast solemn doubts on the results. It’s scarcely shocking that the
Rorschach linked analyses, especially since the Rorschach diagnoses were in part used in
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
9
attaining the original findings.
This points to the final piece in Garfield’s (1947) article, its inclination to minimalize the
significance of the study’s organizational flaws. Mentioned earlier in this paper was a correlation
that exists between schizophrenia and Rorschach presentation. However, to a modern reader, it
may seem obvious that the elevated correspondence of the Rorschach test and other clinical
findings in the study presented by Garfield was just “too good” to be true and had to have been
“artifactual” (Wood, et.al., 2000). Nonetheless, the report modulates the view that product may
have tampered with the results. For instance, the article claims that even if the clinical teams
knew of the writer’s preparation before concluding the experiment, they did not see eye-to-eye
with him on every case. Therefore, when they did agree with him, there were most likely worthy
causes for so doing.
It is important to look back on Garfield’s (1947) experiment for it is seen with fairness that
procedural and inferential miscalculations are still common to this day. Current Rorschach
studies often present prominent, confident findings compared with “methodological problems. In
fact, two of the methodological errors identified in Garfield’s study (failure to blind test
administrators and scorers, and criterion contamination of diagnoses) are still common in
Rorschach studies today, despite recurrent forewarnings by Rorschach scholars” (Exner &
Sendin, 1997; Wood, et.al., 2000; Viglione, 1997; Viglione and Exner, 1995; Weiner 1995).
Still, it’s easier to explain procedural deficiencies within the study of Garfield’s: Sixty years ago,
the community of psychological-research hadn’t yet to familiarize fully with the influence that
the use of effects and bias could quite possibly have on the performance of the Rorschach and
analysis results.
It is regularly (and incorrectly) identified obvious that estimation is statistically more exact
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
10
than clinical estimation (Faust, 1997; Garb, 1998). The verification found of the deduction is
founded upon research not involved with actual clinical figures (i.e., complex qualitative data).
The assumption made is oftentimes used as a foundation when not assessing the acceptance of
complicated conscious and unconscious personality performance. Therefore, Garb's (1998)
argument based from sanctions “of Rossini and Moretti (1997) for clinical training in the
Thematic Apperception Test” (TAT; Murray, 1943) within different programs accurately states
that in order "to integrate science and practice, a course on the TAT should clarify which
interpretation techniques are supported by empirical research" (p. 622). Nonetheless, Garb
additionally declares "when scoring systems are not used, incremental validity of the TAT has
been poor, [and] because actuarial (or statistical) prediction methods have almost always been
more accurate than, or as accurate as, clinicians . . . it is inappropriate to assert [as do Rossini &
Moretti (1997) in paraphrasing Karon (1981) on the usefulness of complex subjective clinical
judgment] that 'such expertise is exactly what the master psychodiagnostician offers beyond
actuarial personality evaluation,'". The generally alleged declaration that statistical (or
“actuarial”) estimation procedures had just about been more precise than the clinicians', but that
is specifically for a particular subsection of results. Garb is aware of this research, but not of
another group of research (of which are false). Empirical records can be present if they
successfully prove the validity of independent clinical judgment.
The issue with formal systems of scoring of the Thematic Apperception Test is that they
abandon the majority of the material that becomes presented. For precise reasons, in the case of
studies whereas someone tries examining a single-specified measure of personality, or for
clinical reasons, someone is only concerned with a precise prearranged feature pertaining to
personality; it’s often not an issue. From therein, an examiner can “improve specific, reliable,
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
11
and accurate scoring patterns that will work empirically” (Meyer & Karon, 1967). But yet, when
observing an individual where the concern is most related may have been unknown before,
scientific processes are vital. To quote Karon (1981), “The reason there is no substitute for a
clinical process of inference with the TAT is that the variables of interest in personality are
literally infinite. There are an infinite number of aspects of the human personality about which
we might be interested. Each of the constructs of most personality theories is itself subdivisible
into any number of aspects, which may or may not be of interest. Thus, for example, the concept
of aggression may be useful as a unitary variable for some purposes, but in some individuals
aggression toward others and toward the self may be handled the same or differently. Aggression
toward inferiors or superiors and/or equals; aggression towards strangers and towards friends;
verbal aggression, thought aggression, and physical aggression may be handled the same or
differently. Conscious and unconscious aggression may be handled differently. Which
distinctions are important will depend both upon the person one is studying and the purpose for
which one is studying that personality,” (p. 94). A chief subject pertaining to this particular
interpretation is clinical against statistical expectation. Contents of Paul Meehl's work (1996)
were correct, as well as contemporary reproductions (Grove & Meehl, 1996). Error is semantic:
What does clinical estimation even mean? In the majority of statistical readings that were
mentioned, the results are a group of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
totals. A theoretician who would be unable to formulate a statistical system in order to obtain
appropriate material from a group of figures more resourcefully than anyone else would be sad
indeed. Yet, what has been stated does not define clinical data, especially where clinicians are
concerned.
The figures concerning a TAT procedure or discussions involving the work of clinicians
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
12
are what are meant by clinical data: statistics related involving an unlimited amount of
proportions, especially the kind that the brain is able to find in order to choose pertinence. So,
“no questionnaire or standardized instrument would include these items because they are not
common among any populace” (Karon, 1981). However, no clinician who became aware that a
client "had been choked repeatedly by his mother for minor offenses," "had been anally raped at
the age of 8 by his alcoholic father," and who "had been seduced by a priest" wouldn’t believe
that this information was of better importance than any homogeneous tool when predicting
outcomes.
A familiar drawback “of all statistical and purely empirical models is that the catalogue on
which the model is based has to be applicable to the dominion of which it is generalized” (Karon,
1981). Concerns that involve age, English-speaking abilities, intelligence, ethnic or cultural
variances, neurological functioning, and cooperativeness are clear instances. Another limitation
of statistical representations shows that a databank has to be large enough so that unplanned
testing mistakes calculating factors are not a big issue. For simple prototypes, an acceptable
model is easily attained, but a number of limitations involving complicated examples have large
sample mistakes, and they require very large records for accurateness.
The studies presented in this paper have been reviewed rather uncritically, with the
emphasis on content rather than on experimental design. Since imperfect investigational methods
appear with monotony in the reports in this area, it would be important to examine more closely
the more commonly found limitations in purpose:
1. No study reviewed here sampled the E population. As Hammond (1954) has indicated,
illustrative design demands that both E and S populations to be effectively tested if overviews are
to be made to larger groups of S and E. Most studies cited here, however, utilized only one E.
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
13
The general results of the work on E alterations makes clear how vague it is to assume that one E
is drawn from the same population as any other E.
2. Those studies which investigated the influence of E alterations by utilizing a random mockup
of cases found in the files of a clinic, make the assumption as Levy (1956) has indicated, that the
cases were initially assigned on a random basis. This supposition may not always be valid, due to
differences in E schedules, interests, and competence. As a result, differences in test reports may
be, in part, a function of uncontrolled bias in the selection of S. It is a far better procedure for the
examiner to control the assignment of cases than to assume existing cases had been assigned
randomly.
3. A frequent technique of evaluating E personality has been to ask the E to take a psychological
test. As the results make quite clear, the orientation of S has to the test significantly impacts the
responses. The meaning of a Rorschach test taken by a graduate student, therefore, is uncertain
and cannot be related easily to variances in S' responses. An improved way of evaluating E's
personality might be to gain conclusions by his superiors and colleagues. Another procedure that
shows potential is the one used by Sanders and Cleveland (1953), who asked S to make ratings of
their thoughts of E.
4. Inquiries of vulnerability of S' replies to situational influence have been led empirically, with
no earlier attempt made to predict where differences would be found. Research on the Rorschach
has been particularly responsible in this respect. Since the Rorschach is still chiefly an
empirically, rather than hypothetically, most examiners have tried to conclude if variances would
ensue among experimental and control groups, but, on finding these differences, have been inept
to deduce their importance. As a result, reaction time and practice-balance have all been
informed to change as a result of trial settings.
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
14
6. Many of the Rorschach studies did not switch the quantity of responses, but assumed that all
differences in factors could be credited to the experimental variable. To a large extent, examiners
now struggle to search out differences in the number of responses, but on rare occasion, will still
disregard this factor. While most of the other statistical faults occur less frequently in later
studies, rise of probability levels continue to be a source of fault.
Notwithstanding these errors in design, the studies that were cited earlier have offered
strong evidence of situational and interpersonal influences in projective testing. It is essential to
mention that the projective reaction did not change with all conditions imposed by the E. What
was to be the crucial factor was the degree to which S’ approach towards total testing situation
remained influenced via experimental circumstances. Wherever a trial variable happened to be
minor in terms of the examination, no considerable effect was introduced in the protocol.
There is substantial evidence that S’ is in a free situation that will apply all available cues
to complete their assigned tasks. The S in the projective test setting will not only use those cues
given by the ink blot or picture, but also those completed by his feelings about the examiner,
those endowed by his desires, outlooks and fears, those inferred in the directives, the setting, and
previous information of the test, and those signs supplied consciously or unconsciously by E.
When E faces the unclear situation of interpreting sense to a sequence of isolated, separate
reactions, he will not only rely on S’ answers, but also on those signals provided by his theoretic
focus, his own needs and expectations, his thoughts concerning S as well as the creations placed
by S' trial behavior and thoughts. Basically, these studies show that E and S behave as should be
expected, considering the knowledge of behavior in vague settings.
Thus, the procedure that many clinicians hoped would serve as an X-ray demonstrates, on
close examination, to function also as a mirror, reflecting objectively S, E, the situation and their
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
15
dealings. This need not be a cause for despair, except for those who feel that E and situational
influences contaminate a protocol. These influences are not sources of error, however, but
indications of revision to the task. One reason for the poor record of blind analysis as a process
for authorizing projective plans is that this method can utilize only a fraction of the material
available in a protocol. Instead of trying to eliminate interpersonal and situational influence, E
might be better to make a more thorough search of his own attitudes and of S' attitudes toward
the test and the situation. The interpersonal situation "is not an evil. It should not be striven
against. As in psychoanalytic technique, this relationship must be regarded as in- evitable, as a
potentially significant influence on the patient's productions, and as a possible goldmine of
material for interpretation" (Schafer, 1954, p. 6).
The significant issues in this capacity remain unresolved. What effect does involvement
have on E's understanding to the positions of S? What importance is the psychological wellbeing of S in his response to the outlooks of E? Little is understood about the situations, which
prompt an S to rely heavily on interpersonal signals, nor is it known of the strengths acting on E,
who is faced with an aggressive, or overly compliant or apprehensive S. Most importantly, the
great mass of the studies indicate only that situational and interpersonal variables impact the
projective procedure, without having to describe in what way the variables impose on E and S. In
what way S feels that E has become hostile and in which way E comes to the realization that S is
attempting to control him can only be determined by studying the interaction process itself.
Hopefully, future studies on projective testing will examine more fully the transactions between
E and S.
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
16
References
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. (1961).
Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. American
Psychological Association.
Alper, T. G. (1954). Review of "Thematic Test Analysis". Psychological Bulletin, 51(1), 97-100.
doi:10.1037/h0050365
Aronow, E., Reznikoff, M., & Moreland, K. L. (1995). The Rorschach: Projective Technique or
Psychometric Test?. Journal Of Personality Assessment, 64(2), 213.
Cronbach, L.J. (1956). Assessment of individual differences. In P.R. Farnsworth (Ed.) Annual
review of psychology. Stanford: Ann. Rev.
Elizur, A. (1949). Content Analysis of the Rorschach with regard to anxiety and hostility.
Rorschach Research Exchange and Journal of Projective Techniques, 13, 247-284.
Exner, J.E., & Sendin, C. (1997). Some issues in Rorschach research. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 13, 155-163.
Faust, D. (1997). Of science, meta-science, and clinical practice: The generalization of a
generalization to a particular. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 331-354.
Fowler, J., Ackerman, S. J., Speanburg, S., Bailey, A., Blagys, M., & Conklin, A. C. (2004).
Personality and Symptom Change in Treatment-Refractory Inpatients: Evaluationof the
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
17
Phase Model of Change Using Rorschach,TAT, and DSM- IV Axis V. Journal Of
Personality Assessment, 83(3), 306-322.
Frank, L. K. (1939) Protective methods for the study of personality. J. Psychol., 8, 389-413.
Garb, H.N. (1998). Studying the clinician :Judgment research and psychological assessment.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Garfield, S.L. (1947). The Rorschach test in clinical diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 3.
375-381.
Green, B.A. (1967). Character structure and its functions. Psychoanalytic Review, 54, 329-354.
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective,
impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures. The clinicalstatistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 2, 293-323.
Harder, D. W. (1979). The Assessment of Ambitious-Narcissistic Character Style with Three
Projective Tests: The Early Memories, TAT, and Rorschach. Journal Of Personality
Assessment, 43(1), 23.
Karon, B. P. (1981). The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). In A.I. Rabin (Ed.) Assessment
with projective techniques: A concise introduction (pp.85-120). New York: Springer.
Karon, B. P. (2000). The clinical interpretation of the Thematic Apperception Test, Rorschach,
and other clinical data: A reexamination of statistical versus clinical prediction.
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
18
Professional Psychology: Research And Practice, 31(2), 230-233. doi:10.1037/07357028.31.2.230
Krohn, A.D. (1973). Level of object representations in the manifest dream and projective tests-a
construct validation study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 5520B.
Lubin, B., Larsen, R. M., & Matarazzo, J. D. (1984). Patterns of psychological test usage in the
United States: 1935–1982. American Psychologist, 39(4), 451-454. doi:10.1037/0003066X.39.4.451
Masling, J. (1960). The influence of situational and interpersonal variables in projective testing.
Psychological Bulletin, 57(1), 65-85. doi:10.1037/h0044057
Mayman, M., & Faris, M. (1960). Early memories as expressions of relationship paradigms.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 30, 507-520.
Meehl, P.E. (1996). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of
the evidence. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Meyer, R. G., & Karon, B. P. (1967). The schizophrenogenic mother concept and the TAT.
Psychiatry, 30, 173-179.
Murray, H.A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Roemer, G.A. (1967). The Rorschach and Roemer symbol test series. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 144, 185-197.
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
19
Rorschach, H. (1942). Psychodiagnostics (5th ed.; P. Lemkau & B. Kronenberg, Trans.). Berne,
Switzerland: Verlag Hans Huber. (Original work published 1921).
Rossini, E. D., & Moretti, R. J. (1997). Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) interpretation:
Practice recommendations from a survey of Clinical Psychology doctoral programs
accredited by the American Psychological Association. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 28, 393-398.
Schafer, R. Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach testing. New York: Grune & Stratton,
1954.
Shapiro, D. (1965). Neurotic styles. New York: Basic Books.
Tallent, N. (1992). The practice of psychological assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall
Urist, J. (1977). The Rorschach test and the Assessment of Object Relations. Journal Of
Personality Assessment, 41, 1-9.
Viglione, D.J. (1997). Problems in Rorschach research and what to do about them. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 68, 590-599.
Viglione, D.J. & Exner, J.E. (1995). Formulating issues in Rorschach research. In J.E. Exner
(Ed.). Issues and methods in Rorschach research (pp.53-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wade, T. C., Baker, T. B., Morton, T. L., & Baker, L. J. (1978). The Status of Psychological
Testing in Clinical Psychology: Relationships Between Test Use and Professional
Activities and Orientations. Journal Of Personality Assessment, 42(1), 3.
Projective Testing: A Review of The Rorschach and
The Thematic Apperception Test
20
Weiner, I.B. (1995). Methodological considerations in Rorschach research. Psychological
Assessment. 7. 330-337
Wood, J. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2000). The Rorschach test in clinical diagnosis: A critical
review, with a backward look at Garfield.. Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 56(3), 395430.