ASSIGNMENT
Topic : ROR
Submitted to:
Sir ArifNadeem
Submitted by:
FakharRazzaq (12853)
Hira Javed
(12846)
Nimra (12813)
LaraibMurtaza (12860)
BS (Hons.)
6th Semester (Eve)
Department of Applied Psychology
Government College University Faisalabad
1
Introduction:
The Rorschach is a performance-based test of personality functioning based on interpreting a
person’s responses to 10 bilaterally symmetrical inkblots. The overall goal of the technique is to
assess the structure of personality, with particular emphasis on how individuals construct their
experience and the meanings assigned to their perceptual experiences. The interpretations on
Rorschach data can provide information on variables such as motivations, response tendencies,
cognitive operations, affectivity, and personal and interpersonal perceptions. Despite attacks
from both in and outside the field of psychology, the Rorschach remains one of the most
extensively used and thoroughly researched techniques. This is reflected in the fact that more
than 200 books and 10,000 articles have been written about or using the Rorschach.
The central assumption of the Rorschach is that stimuli from the environment are organized by a
person’s specific needs, motives, and conflicts, as well as by certain perceptual “sets.” This need
for organization becomes more exaggerated, extensive, and conspicuous when individuals are
confronted with ambiguous stimuli, such as inkblots. Thus, they must draw on their personal
internal images, ideas, and relationships to create a response. This process requires that persons
organize these perceptions as well as associate them with experiences and impressions. The
central thesis on which Rorschach interpretation is based is this: The process by which persons
organize their responses to the Rorschach is representative of how they confront other
ambiguous situations requiring organization and judgment. Once the responses have been made
and recorded, they are coded along different dimensions, including the location, or the area of the
inkblot on which they focused; determinants, or specific properties of the blot they used in
making their responses (color, shape, etc.); and content, or general class of objects to which the
response belongs (human, animal, anatomy, etc.). The interpretation of the overall protocol is
based on the relative number of responses that fall into each of these categories. Some systems
also score for the extent to which subjects organize their responses (organizational activity), the
types of verbalizations, and the meaningful associations related to the inkblots.
Although these scoring categories may appear straightforward, the specifics of scoring and
interpreting the Rorschach are extremely complex. Furthermore, attempts to develop a precise,
2
universally accepted coding system have not been entirely successful, which creates some
confusion and ambiguity in approaching the Rorschach technique itself. Although the primary
scoring systems have some agreed-on similarities, there are also significant differences in the
elements of these systems. These differences, in turn, reflect the complexity and ambiguity in the
nature of the responses made to the cards. Thus, effective use of the Rorschach depends on a
thorough knowledge of a scoring system, clinical experience, and adequate knowledge of
personality and psychopathology.
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT:
Many inkblot-type tests and games had existed long before Rorschach published his original 10
cards in 1921. For example, da Vinci and Botticelli were interested in determining how a
person’s interpretations of ambiguous designs reflected his or her personality. This theme was
later considered by Binet and Henri in 1895 and by Whipple in 1910. A popular parlor game
named Blotto that developed in the late 1800s required players to make creative responses to
inkblots. However, Rorschach developed the first extensive, empirically based system to score
and interpret responses to a standardized set of cards. Unfortunately, Rorschach died at age 37,
shortly after the publication of his major work, Psychodiagnostik (1921/1941). His work was
continued to a limited extent by three of his colleagues Emil Oberholzer, George Roeurer, and
Walter Morgenthaler.
The main approach used by Rorschach and other early developers of inkblot techniques was to
note the characteristic responses of different types of populations. Thus, the initial norms were
developed to help differentiate among various clinical and normal populations: individuals with
schizophrenia, persons with intellectual disabilities (mental retardation), normals, artists,
scholars, and other subgroups with known characteristics. Rorschach primarily wanted to
establish empirically based discriminations among different groups and was only minimally
concerned with the symbolical interpretation of content. Many of his original concepts and
scoring categories have been continued within current systems of analysis. For example, he
noted that depressed, sullen patients seemed to give the fewest responses. Persons giving a large
number of very quick responses were likely to be similarly “scattered” in their perception and
ideation in non-test situations. He also considered the importance of long latencies (so-called
3
shock responses) and hypothesized that they were related to a sense of helplessness and
emotional repression.
Had Rorschach lived longer, the history and development of his test might have been quite
different. Without the continued guidance and research from the “founding father,” the strands of
the Rorschach technique were taken up by persons who had quite different backgrounds from
Rorschach and from one another.
Five Rorschach systems:
By 1957, five Rorschach systems were in wide use, the most popular being those developed by
Beck and by Klopfer. These two approaches came to represent polarized schools of thought and
were often in conflict. S. J. Beck adhered closely to Rorschach’s format for coding and scoring.
He continually stressed the importance of establishing strong empirical relationships between
Rorschach codes and outside criterion measures. Beck emphasized that the response to the
Rorschach involved primarily a perceptual-cognitive process in which the respondents structure
and organize their perceptions into meaningful responses. This perceptual-cognitive process was
likely to reflect their responses to their world in general. For example, persons who broke down
their perceptions of an inkblot into small details were likely to behave similarly for perceptions
outside the testing situation.
In contrast, B. Klopfer was closely aligned to phenomenology and the theories of personality
developed by Freud and Jung. As a result, he emphasized the symbolical and experiential nature
of a respondent’s Rorschach contents. Thus, Klopfer believed that Rorschach responses were
fantasy products triggered by the stimulus of the inkblots. For example, persons who perceived
threatening objects on the inkblots would perceive aspects of their world as similarly threatening.
Although not as popular, additional systems developed by Piotrowski, Hertz, and Rapaport
represented a middle ground between the two extremes represented by Beck and Klopfer. With
five distinct systems available, the Rorschach became not a unitary test but five different tests.
Criticism of the five Rorschach systems:
Exner provided a comparative analysis of these different systems and later concluded that “the
notion of the Rorschach was more myth than reality”. He pointed out that none of the five
4
systems used the same verbal instructions and only two of the systems required identical seating
arrangements. More important, each systematizer developed his or her own format for coding,
which resulted in many differences regarding interpretation, the components required to calculate
quantitative formulas, the meanings associated with many of the variables, and the interpretive
postulates. The wide range of often-competing approaches resulted in numerous detrimental
practices. A survey of practitioners by Exner and Exner indicated that 22% of all respondents
had abandoned scoring altogether and instead based their interpretations on a subjective analysis
of content. Of those who did score, 75% used their own personalized integration of scores from a
variety of systems. In addition, the vast majority did not follow any prescribed set of instructions
for administration. With researchers using a variety of approaches, comparison of the results of
different studies was difficult. Researchers in the early 1970s further reported difficulties in
recruiting subjects, problems with experimenter bias that needed to be corrected by using
multiple examiners, statistical complexities of data analysis, inadequate control groups, and
insufficient normative data. Some of the elements had no empirical basis. The general
conclusion, based on these findings, was that the research on and the clinical use of the
Rorschach were seriously flawed. Despite this, all five systems included some empirically sturdy
elements.
Steps to overcome limitations:
To correct the difficulties with both the research and clinical use of the Rorschach, Exner and his
colleagues began the collection of a broad normative database and the development of an
integrated system of scoring and interpretation. Their initial step was to establish clear guidelines
for seating, verbal instructions, recording, and inquiry by the examiner regarding the examinee’s
responses. The best features for scoring and interpretation, based on both empirical validation
and commonality across systems, were adapted from each of the five different systems. A
scoring category was included in the new system only after it had achieved a minimum .85 level
for inter-scorer reliability.
The final product was first published in 1974 as The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System and
has since been released in second, third and fourth editions. A second volume relating to current
research and interpretation has been released in two editions, and two editions of a volume on the
assessment of children and adolescents have also been published.
5
Age Range:
Normative data for the Comprehensive System has undergone continual revision. A major reason
for these revisions has been to refine stratification. A further impetus was that in 1990, the
Comprehensive System eliminated all protocols with fewer than 14 responses because these were
likely to have resulted in invalid protocols. The normative base reported in Exner third edition of
the Comprehensive System was composed of 700 adult non-patients and 1,390 non-patient
children and adolescents between the ages of 5 and 16. However, it was discovered in 1999 that
more than 200 duplicate adult protocols had inadvertently been included. As a result, a new
normative sample was begun. The most recent publication has included 450 contemporary
protocols from persons aged 18 to 65+, evenly divided between males and females, with a wide
range of education and a variety of ethnic groups. Future publications will include a
progressively larger number of participants. In addition, an international normative reference
group has been collected by Meyer, Erdberg, and Shaffer. The child and adolescent sample
reported in Exner (2003) is the same as that included in 1993 (includes 1,390 non-patients
between the ages of 5 and 16).
Exner’s integration of the different Rorschach approaches into his Comprehensive System has
been successful in that most research studies over the past 20 years have used his system, and it
has become by far the most frequently taught system in graduate training. His attention to
empirical validation, combined with a large normative database, has served to increase its
acceptance and status. Access to training and interpretive aids has been facilitated through
numerous workshops, a scoring workbook, ongoing research publications, new editions of earlier
volumes, and computer-assisted scoring and interpretation (Exner, 1984, 1986, 1993, 2003).
Purpose and uses of the test:
The Rorschach is used to help assess personality structure and identify emotional problems and
mental disorders. The Rorschach test is used to elicit information about the structure and
dynamics of an individual's personality functioning. The test provides information about a
person's thought processes, perceptions, motivations, and attitude toward his or her environment,
and it can detect internal and external pressures and conflicts as well as illogical or psychotic
thought patterns.
6
The Rorschach test can also be used for specific diagnostic purposes. Some scoring methods for
the Rorschach elicit information on symptoms related to depression, schizophrenia , and anxiety
disorders. Also, the test can be used to screen for coping deficits related to developmental
problems in children and adolescents.
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY:
Reliability:
It is previously noted that, Exner originally included only scoring categories that had interscorer
reliabilities of .85 or higher. Some controversy has resulted concerning these values in that other
researchers have reported greater variability. Parker (1983) analyzed 39 papers using 530
different statistical procedures and concluded that, overall, the Rorschach can be expected to
have reliabilities in the low to middle .80s. However,
onlytwoofhisstudiesusedtheComprehensiveSystem.Acklin,McDowell,Verschell, and Chan
found that nearly half of the categories for the Comprehensive System showed excellent
reliabilities (>.81) with substantial reliability (.61–.80) for a third of the categories. They
concluded that a majority of the categories had excellent interscorer reliability, but a subset of
about a quarter of the variables demonstrated lessthanadequate(<
.61)reliability.TheproblemwiththeAcklinetal.data,however, was that the sample sizes were small,
with the result that greater variability would be expected.
Exner reported new interscorer reliabilities with agreement ranging from a high of 99% for
texture and vista responses to alow of88% forpassive movement.These correlationssupport
theclaims ofExner and
ofGronnerod(2006)that,ifscorersareappropriatelytrained,thesystemhasexcellent
interscorerreliabilities.However,someresearchhasdemonstratedthatinterscorerreliabilitywasnotasg
oodforcodesthatoccurinfrequently.Interscorer reliability for theRPAS,muchnewerandthusnotasheavilytested,appearstobegoodtoexcellent,though similar to the
Comprehensive System. As expected, the lowest reliabilities tend to accompany codes that
appear infrequently.
An additional crucial area for reliability is the extent to which clinicians agree on interpretations
related to test data. If one clinician made interpretations that were at variance with those of other
7
clinicians, it would not only indicate low inter-interpreter reliability, but some of the
interpretations would necessarily be inaccurate.
Test-retest reliabilities fort he Comprehensive System have been somewhat variable. Retesting
of 41 variables over a 1-year interval for a nonpatient group produced reliabilities ranging
between .26 and .92. Four of the correlations were above .90, 25 were between .81 and .89, and
10 were below .75. Exnerclarifiedthatthe10variablesbelow.75wouldallbeexpectedtohavehad
relatively low reliabilities because they related to changeable state (rather than trait)
characteristics of the person. He also pointed out that the most important elements in
interpretation are the ratios and percentages, all of which were among the higher reliabilities.
Retestingforthesame group overa3-year interval producedasimilar but slightly lower pattern of
reliability. In contrast, another group of nonpatient adults, retested over a much shorter (3-week)
interval, had somewhat higher overall reliabilities than for either the 1-year or 3-year retestings.
Long-term Comprehensive System retesting for children has not come close to the same degree
of stability as for adults. Exner (1986) clarified that this low stability for test results is to be
expected, given that childrenundergoconsiderabledevelopmentalchanges.However,shorttermretestingover 7-day (for 8-year-olds) and 3-week (for 9-year-olds) intervals did indicate
acceptable levels of stability. Only 2 of 25 variables were below .70, with at least 7above .90 and
the remainder from .70 to .90. As with adults, the ratios and percentages demonstrated relatively
high stabilities. Although acceptable short-term stability for young children’s Rorschach
variables was demonstrated, long-term stability was not found to occur until children reached the
age of 14 or older.
Validity:
The primary focus of early validity studies was to empirically discriminate among different
populations. These empirically based discriminations were originally based on past observations
of a particular group’s responses to the Rorschach, the
developmentofnormsbasedontheseresponses,andcomparisonsofanindividual’sRorschach
responses with these norms. For example, a person with schizophrenia might have a relatively
high number of poor-quality responses, or a person with depression might have very few human
movement responses. In addition to these empirical discriminations, efforts have been made to
8
develop a conceptual basis for specific responses or response patterns. Thus, it has been
conceptualized that people with schizophrenia have poor-quality responses because they do not
perceive the world the way most people do; their perceptions are distorted and inaccurate, and
their reality-testing is poor. A further approach, which was not extensively developed in the
Comprehensive System (nor by Rorschach himself), was the validation of the latent meaning of
symbolical content.
Manyoftheearlyvaliditystudiesaredifficulttoevaluatebecauseofthevaryingscoring systems and
poor methodologies. In addition, most early studies depended on inadequate norms (especially
for studies conducted on children, adolescents, cross-cultural
groups,andpersonsover70).Testresultsmightalsohavebeensignificantlyinfluenced by situational
and interpersonal variables, such as seating, instructions, rapport,
gender,andpersonalityoftheexaminer.
Some efforts have been made to look at the Comprehensive System as a whole to evaluate its
overall validity for its intended purposes. Early meta-analyses indicated that validity ranged from
.40 to .50. However, these results have been challenged by Garb, Florio, and Grovewho
reanalyzed the data from Parker et al. and concluded that the overall validity coefficients for the
Rorschach were only .29 (in contrast to the significantly higher validity of .48 for the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory [MMPI]). However, interactions with type of scoring system,
experience of the scorer, and type of population used were likely to have complicated the picture.
This approachtoevaluatingglobalvalidityforanextremelymultifacetedmeasureislimited,
asitdoesnottakeintoaccountthevalidityofindividualscalesandindexes, each which measure very
different aspects of the individual. As such, it is much more important to establish validity of the
individual variables.
Establishing the validity of Rorschach variables has been complicated by the many scoring
categories and quantitative formulas, each of which has varying levels of validity. When
narrowed down to the Comprehensive System, the test manual itself provides empirical citation
for the validity of all of the variables used within it. Some interpretations have greater validity
than others even in a specific category. For example, the number of human movement responses
(M) has been used as an indexofbothcreativityandfantasy.AreviewoftheresearchbyExnerindicated
thatMrelatesfairlyclearlytofantasyinthatithasbeencorrelatedwithdaydreaming, sleep/dream
9
deprivation, dream recall, and total time spent dreaming, whereas associations between M and
creativity have been weaker and more controversial. Validity might also depend on the context
and population for which the test is used.
For example, a Comprehensive System Depression Index (DEPI) based on seven Rorschach
combinations of scores has been found to provide low or no associations with the presence of
depression among adults. One major factor that may serve to lower Comprehensive System
validity is the meaning associated with, and the effects of, response productivity. Various
interpretations have been associated with extremes of productivity, with low productivity
suggesting defensiveness, depression, and malingering and extremely high productivity
suggesting high achievement or an obsessive-compulsive personality.
Mostearlyvaliditystudiesrarelyconsideredtheprecedingfactors.Moreimportant,
thenumberofresponsesnotonlyaffectsinterpretationsrelatedspecificallytoresponse
productivity;productivityalsoaffectsmanyotherareasofinterpretation.Forexample, a low number of
responses is likely to increase the relative number of responses based on the whole inkblot (W).
In contrast, a high number of responses would be likely to increase the relative number of small
detail (Dd) responses. Because interpretations are frequently based on the relative proportions of
different scoring categories (calculated in quantitative formulas), the overall number of responses
is likely to influence and possibly compromise the validity of the formulas.
Standard instructions:
Examiners should standardize their administration procedures as much as possible. This is
particularly important because research has consistently indicated that it is relatively easy to
influence a client’s responses.
1. Introducing the Respondent to the Technique:
One of the most important goals an examiner must initially achieve is to allow the
examinee to feel relatively comfortable with the testing procedure. Achieving this goal
is complicated by the fact that tests in most cultures are associated with anxiety.
Typically, anxiety interferes with a person’s perceptions and with the free flow of
fantasy, both of which are essential for adequate Rorschach responses. Thus, subjects
should be as relaxed as possible. Their relaxation can be enhanced by giving a clear
10
introduction to the testing procedure, obtaining personal history, answering
questions,andgenerallyavoidinganybehaviorthatmightincreasetheclients’anxiety. In
describing the test, examiners should emphasize relatively neutral words, such as
inkblot, interests, or imagination, rather than potentially anxiety-provoking words, such
as intelligence or ambiguous.
For the most part, any specific information regarding what clients should do or say is to
be avoided. The test situation is designed to be ambiguous, and examiners should avoid
any statements that might influence the responses. If respondents push for more detailed
information about what they should do or what their responses may mean, they should
be told that additional questions can be answered after the test is completed.
2. Giving the Testing Instructions:
 AlthoughsomeRorschachsystematizersrecommendthattherespondenttelltheexami
ner “everything you see”.
 The examiner hand the respondent the first card and ask, “What might this be?”
 Discussion of the cards by the examiner should be avoided as much as possible.
 Comments from the examiner that indicate the quantity or type of response, or
whether the subject can turn the cards, should be strictly avoided.
 If the client asks specific questions, such as the type of responses he or she is
supposed to give or whether he or she can turn the cards, the examiner might
reply that it is up to him or her to decide.
 The main objective is to give the respondent maximum freedom to respond to the
stimuliinhisorherown manner.
 To enhance this stronglyrecommended that the subject and the examiner not be
seated face to face but rather side by side, to decrease the possible influence of
the examiner’s nonverbal behavior.
The overall instructionsandtestingsituationshouldbedesignedbothtokeepthetaskasambiguous as
possible and to keep examiner influence to a minimum. Note that the examinee should be
encouraged actually to hold the cards.
11
3. The Response (Association) Phase:
 Throughout the testing procedure, the basic conditions of step 2 should be
adhered to as closely as possible. However, specific situations often arise as
examinees are free-associating to the Rorschach designs. If a respondent requests
specifics on how to respond or asks the examiner for encouragement or approval,
examiners should consistently reply that the subject can respond however he or
she likes.
 Theexaminershouldtimetheintervalthatbeginswhentherespondentfirstseesthe card
and ends when he or she makes an initial response as well as the total time the
respondentspendswitheachcard.Thesemeasurementscanbehelpfulinrevealingthe
generalapproachtothecardandthepossibledifficultiesincomingupwithresponses.
 Cards II, III, and V are generally considered relatively easy to respond to and, as
a result, usually have shorter reaction times.
 Cards VI, IX, and X typically producethelongestreactiontimes.
Becauseoverttimingofsubjects’responsesislikely to produce anxiety, any
recording should be done as inconspicuously as possible.
 Rather than using a stopwatch, the examiner glance at a watch or clock and
record the minute and second positions for the initial presentation, the first
response, and the point at which the subject hands the card back to the examiner.
The average number of responses is 22.32 (average range = 17–27). Validity can be
compromised with a low number of responses (under 14) and may be questionable
withahighnumberofresponses(morethan42).Exnerbuiltinsomesafeguards to protect against
unusually short or extremely long protocols. A client who produces an extremely brief protocol
(fewer than 14 responses) should be retested immediately
andprovidedwithaclearerrequesttoprovidemoreresponses.Exnerstressedthatallresponsesmustberec
ordedverbatim.Tosimplifythis process, most clinicians develop a series of abbreviations. A set of
abbreviations usedthroughoutalltheRorschachsystemsconsistsofthesymbols(∨, <,∧, >)inwhichthe
peak indicates the angle of the card. It is also important to note any odd or unusual
responsestothecards,suchasanapparentincreaseinanxiety,wanderingofattention, or acting-out on
any of the percepts.
12
4. Inquiry:
The inquiry should begin after all 10 cards have been administered.

Its purpose is to collect the additional information required for an accurate
coding of the responses.

It is intended to clarify the responses that have already been given, not to obtain
new responses.

The information needed from the inquiry phase should ensure that the examiner
knows the location, content, and determinants for each response. (The other
codes can be coded regardless, but information on these three codes needs to be
explicitlygathered.)

Theinquiryshouldnotenduntilthisgoalhasbeenaccomplished.
The examiner should begin by merely repeating what the respondent has said and then waiting.
Usually the respondent begins to clarify his or her response. If this information is insufficient to
clarify how to code the response (location, content, determinants), the examiner might become
slightly more directive by asking “What about it made it look like [a percept]?” The examiner
should not ask, “Is it mainly the shape?” or “How important was the color?” These questions are
far too directive and are worded in a way that can exert influence on the respondent’s
descriptions of his or her responses. The examiner should consistently avoid leading the client or
indicating howheorsheshouldrespond.Particularskillisrequiredwhenclarifyingadeterminant that
has been unclearly articulated but merely implied.
The outcome of a well-conducted inquiry is the collection of information sufficient to decide on
coding for location, content, and determinants. If, on the location, information based on the
client’s verbal response is insufficient, the examiner should have the client point to the percept.
An additional feature of the inquiry is to test the client’s awareness of his or her responses.
Materials needed in the process of testing:
As an example of a psychological test based on the projective hypothesis, the Rorschach has few
peers. Indeed, no general discussion of psychological tests is complete without reference to the
Rorschach, despite heated scientific controversies. The Rorschach has been called everything
from a psychological X-ray and “perhaps the most powerful psychometric instrument ever
13
envisioned” to an instrument that “bears a charming resemblance to a party game” and should be
“banned in clinical and forensic settings”. Strangely, the Rorschach is both revered and reviled.
Historical Antecedents Like most concepts, the notion of using inkblots to study human
functioning did not simply appear out of thin air. More than 25 years before the birth of Herman
Rorschach, the originator of the test that bears his name, J. Kerner noted that individuals
frequently report idiosyncratic or unique personal meanings when viewing inkblot stimuli. The
wide variety of possible responses to inkblots does provide a rationale for using them to study
individuals. Indeed, Binet proposed the idea of using inkblots to assess personality functioning
when Rorschach was only 10 years old. Several historic investigators then supported Binet’s
position concerning the potential value of inkblots for investigating human personality. Their
support led to the publication of the first set of standardized inkblots by Whipple (1910).
Rorschach, however, receives credit for finding an original and important use for inkblots:
identifying psychological disorders. His investigation of inkblots began in 1911 and culminated
in 1921 with the publication of his famous book Psychodiagnostik. A year later, he suddenly and
unexpectedly died of a serious illness at age 37. Rorschach’s work was viewed with suspicion
and even disdain right from the outset. Not even the sole psychiatric journal of Switzerland,
Rorschach’s homeland, reviewed Psychodiagnostik. In fact, only a few foreign reviews of the
book appeared, and these tended to be critical. When David Levy first brought Rorschach’s test
to the United States from Europe, he found a cold, unenthusiastic response. U.S. psychologists
judged the test to be scientifically unsound, and psychiatrists found little use for it. Nevertheless,
the use of the test gradually increased, and eventually it became quite popular. Five individuals
have played dominant roles in the use and investigation of the Rorschach. One of these, Samuel
J. Beck, was a student of Levy’s. Beck was especially interested in studying certain patterns or,
as he called them, “configurational tendencies” in Rorschach responses (Beck, 1933). Beck, who
died in 1980, eventually wrote several books on the Rorschach and influenced generations of
Rorschach practitioners. Like Beck, Marguerite Hertz stimulated considerable research on the
Rorschach during the years when the test first established its foothold in the United States. Bruno
Klopfer, who immigrated to the United States from Germany, published several key Rorschach
books and articles and played an important role in the early development of the test.
ZygmuntPiotrowski and David Rapaport came somewhat later than Beck Hertz, and Klopfer,
but like them continues to exert an influence on clinical practitioners who use the Rorschach.
14
The development of the Rorschach can be attributed primarily to the efforts of these five
individuals. Like most experts, however, the five often disagreed. Their disagreements are the
source of many of the current problems with the Rorschach. Each expert developed a unique
system of administration, scoring, and interpretation; they all found disciples who were willing
to accept their biases and use their systems.
Stimuli, Administration, and Interpretation:
Rorschach constructed each stimulus card by dropping ink onto a piece of paper and folding it.
The result was a unique, bilaterally symmetrical form on a white background. After
experimenting with thousands of such blots, Rorschach selected 20. However, the test publisher
would only pay for 10. Of the 10 finally selected, five were black and gray; two contained black,
gray, and red; and three contained pastel colors of various shades. The Rorschach is an
individual test. In the administration procedure, each of the 10 cards is presented to the subject
with minimum structure. After preliminary remarks concerning the purpose of testing, the
examiner hands the first card to the type of response permitted, and no clues are given
concerning what is expected Anxious subjects or individuals who are made uncomfortable by
unstructured situations frequently ask questions, attempting to find out as much as possible
before committing themselves. The examiner, however, must not give any cues that might reveal
the nature of the expected response. Furthermore, in view of the finding that the examiner may
inadvertently reveal information or reinforce certain types of responses through facial
expressions and other forms of nonverbal communication advocated an administration procedure
in which the examiner sits next to the subject rather than face-to-face as in Rapaport’s system.
Notice that the examiner is nonspecific and largely vague. This lack of clear structure or
direction with regard to demands and expectations is a primary feature of all projective tests. The
idea is to provide as much ambiguity as possible so that the subject’s response reflects only the
subject. If the examiner inadvertently provides too many guidelines, the response may simply
reflect the subject’s tendency to perform as expected or to provide a socially desirable response.
Therefore, an administration that provides too much structure is antithetical to the main idea
behind projective tests.
15
Each card is administered twice. During the free-association phase of the test, the examiner
presents the cards one at a time. If the subject gives only one response to the first card, then the
examiner may say, “Some people see more than one thing here.” The examiner usually makes
this remark only once. If the subject rejects the card that is, states that he or she sees nothing then
the examiner may reply, “Most people do see something here, just take your time.” The examiner
records every word and even every sound made by the subject verbatim. In addition, the
examiner records how long it takes a subject to respond to a card (reaction time) and the position
of the card when the response is made (upside down, sideways).
In the second phase, the inquiry, the examiner shows the cards again and scores the subject’s
responses. Responses are scored according to at least five dimensions, including location (where
the perception was seen), determinant (what determined the response), form quality (to what
extent the response matched the stimulus properties of the inkblot), content (what the perception
was), and frequency of occurrence (to what extent the response was popular or original; popular
responses occur once in every three protocols on average).
In scoring for location, the examiner must determine where the subject’s perception is located on
the inkblot. To facilitate determining this location, a small picture of each card, known as the
location chart, is provided. If necessary, on rare occasions, an examiner may give a subject a
pencil and ask the subject to outline the perception on the location chart. In scoring for location,
the examiner notes whether the subject used the whole blot (W), a common detail (D), or an
unusual detail (Dd). Location may be scored for other factors as well, such as the confabulatory
response (DW). In this response, the subject overgeneralizes from a part to the whole.
According to such Rorschach proponents as Exner, a summary of a subject’s location choices
can be extremely valuable. The examiner may, for example, determine the number and
percentage of W, D, and Dd responses. This type of information, in which scoring categories are
summarized as a frequency or percentage, is known as the quantitative, structural, or statistical
aspect of the Rorschach as opposed to the qualitative aspects, which pertain to the content and
sequence of responses. Normal subjects typically produce a balance of W, D, and Dd responses.
When a subject’s pattern deviates from the typical balance, the examiner begins to suspect
problems. However, no one has been able to demonstrate that a particular deviation is linked to a
specific problem. A substantial deviation from what is typical or average may suggest several
16
possibilities. The protocol may be invalid. The subject may be original or unconventional and
thus fail to respond according to the typical pattern. Or the subject may have a perceptual
problem associated with certain types of brain damage or severe emotional problems. The
relative proportion of W, D, and Dd location choices varies with maturational development.
Ames, Metraux, and Walker (1971), for example, noted that W responses occur most frequently
in the 3- to 4-year-old group. As the child grows older, the frequency of W responses gradually
decreases until young adulthood. Theoretically, adult protocols with a preponderance of W
responses suggest immaturity or low mental age. Like other quantitative aspects of the
Rorschach, location patterns and frequencies have been studied in experimental investigations.
Presumably, these investigations provide information about the meaning of various response
patterns and thus contribute to the construct validity of the Rorschach. Unfortunately, many of
the results of the studies conflict with the opinions of experts. Furthermore, many studies that
support the validity of the Rorschach have been denounced as un replicated, methodologically
unsound, and inconsistent. There appears to be no room for compromise in this area of
psychological testing. Having ascertained the location of a response, the examiner must then
determine what it was about the inkblot that led the subject to see that particular percept. This
factor is known as the determinant. One or more of at least four properties of an inkblot may
determine or lead to a response: its form or shape, its perceived movement, its color, and its
shading. If the subject uses only the form of the blot to determine a response, then the response is
scored F and is called a pure form response. Responses are scored for form when the subject
justifies or elaborates a response by statements such as “It looks like one,” “It is shaped like
one,” or “Here are the head, legs, feet, ears, and wings.” In all of these examples, the response is
determined exclusively on the basis of shape. In addition to form, a perception may be based on
movement, color, shading, or some combination of these factors. These other determinants can
be further subdivided. Movement may be human (M), such as two people hugging; animal (FM),
such as two elephants playing; or inanimate (m), such as sparks flying. As you can see, the
scoring can become quite complex.
As with location, several attempts have been made to link the presence (or absence) of each
determinant as well as the relative proportion of the various determinants to various hypotheses
and empirical findings. Consider the movement response. Most Rorschach practitioners agree
that whether and how a subject uses movement can be revealing. Like most Rorschach
17
indicators, however, the meaning of movement is unclear because of disagreements among
experts and contradictory or unclear experimental findings. Many experts believe that the
movement response is related to motor activity and impulses. Numerous movement responses,
for example, may suggest high motor activity or strong impulses. The ratio of M (human
movement) to FM (animal movement) responses has been linked by some experts to a person’s
control and expression of internal impulses. A special type of movement response is called
cooperative movement. Such responses involve positive interaction between two or more
humans or animals. Exner and colleagues believe that such responses provide information about
a subject’s attitude concerning how people interact. One study, for example, reported that
individuals who give more than two such responses tended to be rated by others as fun to be
with, easy to be around, and trustworthy. The conclusion seemed to be that such responses were
positive. Subsequent research, however, could not confirm the initial findings. In a study of 20
individuals who had committed sexual homicide, 14 gave cooperative movement responses.
Clearly, there is no simple or clear-cut approach to Rorschach interpretation.
Competent psychologists never blindly accept one interpretation of a particular quantitative
aspect of the Rorschach. Certainly, one who blindly accepts a particular interpretation of a
Rorschach pattern is ignoring the available literature. Identifying the determinant is the most
difficult aspect of Rorschach administration. Because of the difficulties of conducting an
adequate inquiry and the current lack of standardized administration procedures, examiners vary
widely in the conduct of their inquiries. It has been known for years that examiner differences
influence the subject’s response. As a result of this problem, much of the Rorschach literature is
confounded by differences in administration and scoring alone, let alone interpretation. This is
one reason why reliable experimental investigations of the Rorschach are rare. On the other
hand, scoring content is relatively simple. Most authorities list content categories such as human
(H), animal (A), and nature (N). An inquiry is generally not necessary to determine content.
Similarly, most experts generally agree on the so-called populars, those responses frequently
given for each card. Exner’s Comprehensive System, which average, provides a standardized
method for scoring populars.
Form quality is the extent to which the percept (what the subject says the inkblot is) matches the
stimulus properties of the inkblot. Scoring form quality is difficult. Some experts argue that if the
18
examiner can also see the percept, then the response has adequate form quality, but if the
examiner cannot see it, then the response has poor form quality and is scored F. Obviously, such
a subjective system is grossly inadequate because scoring depends on the intelligence,
imagination, skill, and psychological state of the examiner. Exner’s Comprehensive System,
which uses the usual frequency of the occurrence of various responses in evaluating form
quality, is more objective and thus more scientifically acceptable than the subjective method.
Rorschach scoring is obviously difficult and complex. Use of the Rorschach requires advanced
graduate training. You should not attempt to score or use a Rorschach without formal and
didactic graduate instruction and supervised experience. Without this detailed training, you
might make serious errors because the procedure is so complex. Rorschach protocols may be
evaluated not only for its quantitative data but also for qualitative features, including specific
content and sequence of responses. One important aspect of a qualitative interpretation is an
evaluation of content reported frequently by emotionally disturbed, mentally retarded, or braindamaged individuals but infrequently by the normal population. Such responses have been used
to discriminate normal from disordered conditions. Confabulatory responses also illustrate the
idea behind qualitative interpretations. In this type of response, the subject overgeneralizes from
a part to a whole: “It looked like my mother because of the eyes. My mother has large piercing
eyes just like these.” Here the subject sees a detail “large piercing eyes” and overgeneralizes so
that the entire inkblot looks like his or her mother. Although one such response has no clear or
specific meaning, experts believe that the more confabulatory responses a subject makes, the
more likely that she or he is in a disordered state.
Psychometric Properties:

Clinical Validation
The mystique and popularity of the Rorschach became widespread in the 1940s and 1950s. This
popularity was widely based on clinical evidence gathered from a select group of Rorschach
virtuosos who had the ability to dazzle with blind analysis, a process by which a clinician
conducts a Rorschach analysis of a patient with no former knowledge of the patient’s history or
diagnosis and then validates the results of the Rorschach evaluation by checking other sources.
For those who were interested in forming an opinion about the validity of the Rorschach, the
19
impact of one stunning display of insightful blind analysis was far greater than the impact of vast
collections of empirical evidence that disputed the Rorschach’s scientific validity, and these
displays were responsible for much of the wide and unquestioning acceptance of the Rorschach
as a sound diagnostic tool.
However, in the early 1960s, research began a long trend that has lasted to the present and has
revealed that the Rorschach was less than miraculous. With the application of scientific methods
of evaluation, there continue to be clear indications that even the Rorschach elite did not possess
the ability to divine true diagnoses. The astounding successes in clinical validation became an
enigma that has been explained in several ways. First, it has been suggested that the great
successes in blind analysis were the product of a few simple tricks. One of these tricks, labeled
the Barnum effect by Bertram Forer, is illustrated by a demonstration he used with his
introductory psychology class. Forer prepared a personality profile for each of his new students
based on a questionnaire he had administered. He then requested that each of his students rate
their personal profile for accuracy, 0 being inaccurate and 5 being perfect. Forer’s students gave
an average rating of 4.2 (highly accurate), and more than 40% of the students said their profiles
were a perfect description of their personality. The catch is that Forer had given each of the
students the exact same profile, which he had compiled from a book of horoscopes. Forer had
selected statements that seemed precise but that actually fit most people. He demonstrated the
degree to which people overestimate the uniqueness and precision of general statements
concerning their personality. Wood suggest that much of the overwhelming acceptance of
diagnosis based on blind analysis resulted from the Barnum effect and not from stunning
accuracy. It has also been suggested that the extraordinary early success of blind analysis could
be attributed to the evaluator giving several different, or even contradictory, analyses for an
individual client. When the information from other psychological tests and interviews was then
revealed, the accuracy of many results of the blind reading could be supported by some of the
statements, and the reading only appeared to be a success.
Others have explained the early successes not by trickery, but by the level of genius of the
Rorschach virtuosos and by their ability to succeed in blind analysis because of their vast
experience with the Rorschach. But these explanations fall short when considering that the same
virtuosos who stunned others with their success in clinical settings were able to perform no better
20
than chance when tested in controlled studies. In addition, it has also been suggested that
experience with the Rorschach does not lend itself to a greater degree of accuracy in diagnosis.
Regardless of the means by which early success of blind analysis and clinical proof of the
validity of the Rorschach were obtained, scientists contend that clinical evaluation is unreliable,
subject to self-deception, and unscientific. Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out and focus
on information that confirms ardent beliefs and to disregard information that tends to contradict
those beliefs, can mislead even the most honest and well-meaning clinicians. Consider a clinician
who hopes to prove the validity of the Rorschach. The clinician makes an evaluation based on
the patient’s responses to the inkblots and is then presented with a myriad of details about the
patient gleaned from different psychological tests, interviews, and the client’s background. From
that myriad of information, the data that support the diagnosis based on the Rorschach would
tend to be automatically focused on and retained; information not supporting the Rorschach’s
findings could be easily passed over. In response to several studies in the late 1950s and early
1960s that served to debunk the greatness of Rorschach, Exner, as indicated, began to develop a
system to remedy many of the problems with which the Rorschach was plagued. Exner
attempted to address these problems with his creation of the Comprehensive System for scoring.
Because the Comprehensive System for scoring the Rorschach is widely taught and the most
largely accepted method in use today, research concerning the reliability of this system is
valuable when discussing the Rorschach. Lis et al. (2007) investigated the impact of
administration and inquiry skills on Rorschach Comprehensive System. The results indicate that
administration skills can have a dramatic impact and may contribute to variations in samples
collected by different investigators. Many scientifically minded evaluators of the Rorschach are
in agreement that the Comprehensive System has failed to remedy the inadequacies of the
Rorschach. In their 2003 book entitled What’s Wrong with the Rorschach? Wood and colleagues
outlined several facets of the Rorschach that raise doubt about its use in situations, such as
forensic and clinical settings, which require a high degree of diagnostic accuracy. The following
summarizes their contentions.

Norms:
Unless the scores of a client can be compared to the scores of a reference group, they are of no
use. Although it has been estimated that the Rorschach is administered yearly to more than 6
21
million people worldwide, it has never been adequately normed. Attempts to create
representative national norms have failed on several levels. Today, most clinicians who use the
Rorschach depend on the norming carried out by Exner. By 1986, Exner had established norms
for average adult Americans; by 1990, Exner’s books were filled with normative tables that
included norms for practically every Rorschach variable. Although Exner was given credit for
establishing the Rorschach’s first reliable, nationally representative norms, Wood et al. (2003)
contend that his attempt was significantly flawed because of a computational error created by
using the same 221 cases twice in his sample. In other words, his sample of what was reported to
be 700 individuals consisted of 479 individuals, 221 of whom were entered twice. Many
clinicians now use Exner’s revised norms. Exner conducted a normative project and released
new nonpatient norms. The norms were based on a population of 450 adults recruited from 22
states and assessed by 22 examiners. Although this revision is a positive step, it cannot undo the
decade of inaccurate diagnoses that may have resulted because of faulty norms. Also, the revised
norms have been criticized as being seriously flawed and differing significantly from those of
other researchers. Furthermore, a review of the results from 32 separate studies concluded that
the norms used in the Comprehensive System are inaccurate and tend to overidentify
psychological disorders in nonpatientpopulations .

Overpathologizing:
Research has suggested that diagnoses from the Rorschach, whether using the older system for
scoring or Exner’s Comprehensive System, wrongly identify more than half of normal
individuals as emotionally disturbed. The problem of overpathologizing has been seen not only
in the diagnosis of healthy adults but also in children. Hamel found that slightly above-average
children were labeled as suffering from significant social and cognitive impairments when
evaluated with the Rorschach. The possible harm from mislabeling individuals as sick when they
are not is immeasurable. Consider the consequences of wrongly diagnosing an individual in the
family court setting, where a faulty finding could lead to a parent losing custody of a child.
Equally devastating repercussions could result from mislabeling in clinical and forensic settings.
Although the Rorschach is not advised in the child custody evaluation, according to clinician
surveys, it is used in more than 50% of parent assessments in the child custody determination
process. Also, consider the life-altering consequences of mislabeling a child as psychologically
22
unwell, such as the stigma and differential treatment associated with mental or emotional illness
and the implementation of costly and time-consuming treatment plans.

Unreliable Scoring
The traditional belief, especially among opponents of the Rorschach, is that the Rorschach is
unreliable. Indeed, when one views individual studies in isolation, especially those published
before 1985, the results appear confusing. For every study that has reported internal consistency
coefficients in the .80’s and .90’s, one can find another with coefficients of .10 or even .01.
Psychologists who hope to shed light on this picture through meta-analysis, however, have found
themselves in the midst of controversy. Meta-analysis is a statistical procedure in which the
results of numerous studies are averaged in a single, overall investigation. In an early metaanalysis of Rorschach reliability and validity, K. Parker reported an overall internal reliability
coefficient of .83 based on 530 statistics from 39 papers published between 1971 and 1980 in the
Journal of Personality Assessment, the main outlet for research on projective techniques. Metaanalyses conducted by Parker and others were subsequently criticized as flawed on the grounds
that results on validity were not analyzed separately from results on reliability. Exner has
countered, finding it “reasonable” to argue for test–retest coefficients in the .70’s. Moreover, the
lack of separate results on reliability and validity should affect only the assessment of the
validity of the Rorschach, not its reliability. Furthermore, when one uses the Kuder-Richardson
formula (which examines all possible ways of splitting the test in two) to calculate internal
consistency coefficients rather than the more traditionally used odd–even procedure, Rorschach
reliability coefficients are markedly increased. In one study, E. E. Wagner and coworkers
compared the split-half coefficients using the odd–even and the Kuder-Richardson techniques for
12 scoring categories. With the odd–even technique, coefficients ranged between 2.075 and
1.785. However, with the Kuder-Richardson, the coefficients ranged from .55 to .88, with a
mean of .77. Thus, results from both meta-analysis and application of Kuder- Richardson
techniques reveal a higher level of Rorschach reliability than has generally been attributed to the
test.
23

Lack of Relationship to Psychological Diagnosis
Although a few Rorschach scores accurately evaluate some conditions characterized by thought
disorder and anxiety, there is a notable absence of proven relationships between the Rorschach
and psychological disorders and symptoms. Several classic studies examined the Rorschach’s
ability as a psychodiagnostic test and were disappointing to those who hoped to prove its
accuracy. More recently, Nezworski and Garb contend that Comprehensive System scores do not
demonstrate a relationship to psychopathy, conduct disorder, or antisocial personality disorder,
and the original and revised versions of the Depression Index have little relationship to
depression diagnosis. Wood, Lilienfeld, Garb, and Nezworski reviewed hundreds of studies
examining the diagnostic abilities of the Rorschach and found these studies did not support it as a
diagnostic tool for such disorders as major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder,
dissociative identity disorder, conduct disorder, psychopathy, anxiety disorders, or dependent,
narcissistic, or antisocial personality disorders. Although even proponents of the Rorschach often
agree that it is not a valid diagnostic tool, the Rorschach continues to be used in both clinical and
forensic settings for the purpose of diagnosis hundreds of thousands of times each year in the
United States alone.
The Problem of “R”:
Those who are being evaluated with the Rorschach are free to give as many responses (“R”) to
each inkblot as they wish. As early as 1950, it was determined that this aspect unduly influenced
scores. As the number of responses goes up, so do other scores on the test. This causes several
problems. If a person is generally more cooperative or intellectual, then they are more likely to
give more responses. Those who are more likely to give more responses are also more likely to
give what are labeled space responses (responding to the white space within or around the
inkblot instead of responding to the inkblot). More space responses are interpreted by clinicians
as indicating oppositional and stubborn characteristics in the test taker. Thus, those who aremost
cooperative with the test are more likely to be falsely labeled as oppositional. This is just one
example of how “R” can negatively affect Rorschach scores. Although the problem with “R”
was determined in the early history of the Rorschach, clinicians who use the Rorschach generally
ignore the problem.
24
In sum, evaluating the Rorschach on classical psychometric properties (standardization, norms,
reliability, validity) has proven exceptionally difficult. Indeed, this attempt to document or refute
the adequacy of the Rorschach has produced one of the greatest divisions of opinion within
psychology. Time and again, psychologists heatedly disagreed about the scientific validity of the
Rorschach. Despite numerous negative evaluations, the Rorschach has flourished in clinical
settings.
In evaluating the Rorschach, keep in mind that there is no universally accepted method of
administration. Some examiners provide lengthy introductions and explanations; others provide
almost none. Most of the experts state that the length, content, and flavor of administrative
instructions should depend on the subject. Empirical evidence, however, indicates that the
method of providing instructions and the content of the instructions influence a subject’s
response to the Rorschach. Given the lack of standardized instructions, which has no
scientifically legitimate excuse, comparisons of the protocols of two different examiners are
tenuous at best.
Suppose, for example, one hypothesizes that the total number of responses to a Rorschach is
related to the level of defensiveness. Even with an adequate criterion measure of defensiveness,
if examiner instructions influence the number of responses, then one examiner might obtain an
average of 32 responses whereas a second might obtain 22, independent of defensiveness. If
protocols from both examiners are averaged in a group, then any direct relationship between
number of responses and defensiveness can easily be masked or distorted.
Like administration, Rorschach scoring procedures are not adequately standardized. One system
scores for human movement whenever a human is seen, whereas another has elaborate and
stringent rules for scoring human movement. The former system obviously finds much more
human movement than does the latter, even when the same test protocols are evaluated. Without
standardized scoring, determining the frequency, consistency, and meaning of a particular
Rorschach response is extremely difficult.
One result of unstandardized Rorschach administration and scoring procedures is that reliability
investigations have produced varied and inconsistent results. Even when reliability is shown,
validity is questionable. Moreover, scoring as well as interpretation procedures do not show
25
criterion-related evidence for validity and are not linked to any theory, which limits constructrelated evidence for validity. Researchers must also share in the responsibility for the
contradictory and inconclusive findings that permeate the Rorschach literature. Many research
investigations of tests such as the Rorschach have failed to control important variables, including
race, sex, age, socioeconomic status, and intelligence. If race, for example, influences test results
as research indicates, then studies that fail to control for race may lead to false conclusions.
Other problems that are attributable to the research rather than to psychometric properties
include lack of relevant training experience in those who score the protocols, poor statistical
models, and poor validating criteria.
Whether the problem is lack of standardization, poorly controlled experiments, or both, there
continues to be disagreement regarding the scientific status of the Rorschach. As Buros noted
some time ago, “This vast amount of writing and research has produced astonishingly little, if
any, agreement among psychologists regarding the specific validities of the Rorschach”. In brief,
the meaning of the thousands of published Rorschach studies is still debatable. For every
supportive study, there appears to be a negative or damaging one.
These words are as true today as they were in 1970. Clearly, the final word on the Rorschach has
yet to be spoken. Far more research is needed, but unless practitioners can agree on a standard
method of administration and scoring, the researchers’ hands will be tied.
In the first edition of this book, published in 1982, we predicted that the 21st century would see
the Rorschach elevated to a position of scientific respectability because of the advent of Exner’s
Comprehensive System. Over the years, we backed away from this position. Now, no less than
35 years later, we must acknowledge that we do not know the answer. However, it would appear
as though the ethical burden rests with the test’s users. Any user must be conversant with the
literature and ready against attack.
26