Rorschach Inkblot Test (Exner's Comprehensive System)
Utility Of The Rorschach Inkblot Test
• Personality Assessment • Assessment Of Thought Disorder
History Of The Rorschach
“Blotto”: A Popular Parlor Game
Hermann Rorschach • Inkblots As Intellectual Assessment, Then Personality Assessment • 10 Inkblots Published In Psychodiagnostik In 1921
From 20s To 60s • Five Competing Interpretative Systems
– – – – – Beck (Samuel Beck) Hertz (Marguerite Hertz) Klopfer* (Bruno Klopfer) Piotrowski (Zigmund Piotrowski) Rappaport (David Rappaport)
History Of The Rorschach (Cont.)
John Exner’s Empirical Studies Of The Rorschach • Attempt To Make The Rorschach Inkblot Test More Objective • Integration Of The Five Systems • Exner’s Comprehensive System Is The Most Frequently Used System For Interpreting The Rorschach Inkblot Test Rorschach: A Projective Test • Projection (Morgan & Murray, 1930s, TAT)
– Internal Psychological Organization And Needs May Be Projected Onto Ambiguous Stimuli
Response Process • Encoding Of Ambiguous Stimulus -> LTM/Percepts/Introjects -> Filter /Editing (Concious/Unconcious) -> Response Potential Effect Of The Examiner On The Examinee’s Responses
Administration
• Two Phases Of Administration
– Free Association Phase – Inquiry Phase
• Record Responses Verbatim During Both Phases • Side-By-Side Seating • Tester Language
– “We Are Going To Do The Inkblot Test. (If Pt Asks -> It Will Help Me Understand You Better)” – Free Association Phase • Card I – “What Might This Be?” – Must Give At Least Two Responses To Card I (“Look Some More, Take Your Time, You Will Find Something Else”) – If Card I Responses > 6, Stop Before 7th And No More Than 6 On Cards 2 - 10 – If Card I Responses < 6, No Limit On Number Of Responses For Subsequent Cards – Inquiry Phase • “Help Me To See It, Just Like You Saw It” • Re-Read Ss’s Response Verbatim, Then Record What They Say Verbatim
Coding Responses To The Rorschach Inkblots
Eight (8) Categories
• • • • • • • • Location Developmental Quality Determinants Organizational Activity Form Quality Content Popular Special Scores
Coding (Cont.)
• Location
– W = Whole Inkblot – D = Common Detail – Dd = Uncommon Detail – S = Use Of White Space (Tack It On…e.g., DdS)
Coding (Cont.)
Developmental Quality • Reflects Cognitive Processing, Mental Complexity And Flexibility • Possibilities
+ = Synthesized Response
• Two Or More Objects, Separate But Related, At Least One Of The Objects Has A Specific Form Demand
v/+ = Vague/Synthesized Response
• Synthesized Response Without Form Demand
o = Ordinary Response
• Response With Specific Form Demand
v = Vague Response
• Diffuse Or General Impression Is Expressed (No Form Demand) • e.g., “Evil,” “Love”
Coding (Cont.)
• Determinants
– Three Classes
• Form • Color • Shading
– See Table 10
Coding (Cont.)
• Organizational Activity (Z)
– Assigned To Any Response That Includes Form
• W
– A W Response With A Developmental Quality Coding Of +, o, Or v/+
• Adjacent Detail
– Response Meaningfully Integrates Two Or More Adjacent Detail Areas
• Nonadjacent Detail
– Response Meaningfully Integrates Two Or More Nonadjacent Detail Areas
• White Space
– White Space Integrated With Other Parts Of The Inkblot
• See Table • Assign Highest Z
Coding (Cont.)
• Form Quality
– The Extent To Which The Response Fits (Can Be Seen From) The Inkblot + = Superior-Overelaborated O = Ordinary U = Unusual - = Minus
• Category Descriptions in Table 4 • FQ Ratings Per Response In Working Tables (Ch. IX Of Manual)
Coding (Cont.)
• Content
– See Table 5
Coding (Cont.)
• Popular Responses
– See Table 6
Coding (Cont.)
• Special Scores
– See Table 6 – Deviant Verbalization (DV)
• Odd Language • Two Possible Characteristics
– Neologism (Idiosyncratic Word Usage) » “A Cat Sticking Her Purr Up” » Looks Like Someone’s Public Arch” – Redundancy » “A Trio Of Three People” » “Two Twin Lips”
Coding (Cont.)
• Special Scores (Cont.)
– See Table 6 – Deviant Response (DR)
• Responses With Two Possible Characteristics
– Inappropriate Phrases (Unnecessary Phases) » “It’s A Bird, But I Was Hoping To See A Butterfly.” » “An Abstract Of President Bush, If You Look At It From A Republican Perspective.” – Circumstantial Responses (Response With Inappropriate Elaboration Or Rambling Language) » It Looks Like A Map Of Two Continents…I Can Tell This Because I’ve Traveled To The Middle East And It Is Quite Hot There … Even Hotter Than Bakersfield In August”
Coding (Cont.)
• Special Scores (Cont.)
– See Table 6 – Incongruous Combination (INCOM)
• Aspects Of The Inkblot Are Inappropriately Merged Into A Single, Unrealistic Object
– “A Frog With A Mustache” – “A Woman With The Head Of A Chicken”
Coding (Cont.)
• Special Scores (Cont.)
– See Table 6 – Fabulized Combination (FABCOM)
• The Percept Reported Involves Two Objects In A Relationship That Is Inconsistent With Reality
– “A Frog Holding A Baseball Bat” – “A Woman, You Can See Her Heart Pumping”
Coding (Cont.)
• Special Scores (Cont.)
– See Table 6 – Inappropriate Logic (ALOG)
• Without Prompting, The Subject Uses Strained Reasoning To Justify The Answer
– “It Must Be The North Pole Because It Is At The Top Of The Card” – “He Must Be A Coal Miner Because He Is All Black”
Coding (Cont.)
• Special Scores (Cont.)
– See Table 6
– Perseveration (PSV)
• Within Card Perseveration
– Same Location, DQ, Determinants, FQ, Content, etc.
• Content Perseveration
– Subject Identifies The Percept As The Same One Seen Previously
• Mechanical Perseveration
– Card I – “A Bat,” Card II – “A Bat,” Card III – “A Bat”
Coding (Cont.)
• Special Scores (Cont.)
– See Table 6 – Confabulation (CONFAB)
• Subject Initially Focuses On A Detail Of The Inkblot, Then Generalizes A Response Based On That Detail To A Larger Area Or The Entire Inkblot • Generalized Response Hinges On The Initially Identified Detail • “I Saw The Crab And Then I Knew It Was An Ocean Scene…see There’s A Lobster And Some Algae And …” • “It’s A Claw..It’s A Lobster”
Interpretation Of The Rorschach
Validity (R = Responses)
• Invalid If R < 14 • Invalid If R < 17 And Lambda (L) > 1.2 • Lambda (L) = Sum F Rs/ Sum Non-F Rs
Interpretation Of The Rorschach
Coping
• Stress Tolerance (Current Situation)
– D = Stress Tolerance (i.e., Effective Coping) In Their Present Circumstance – D > 0 Better Stress Tolerance In Current Situation – D< 0 -> Poor Stress Tolerance In Current Situation
• Stress Tolerance (Typical, Trait-like)
– Adj D (Adjusted D) = Trait-like Stress Tolerance/Effective Coping – Adj D > 0 Better Stress Tolerance (Typical, Trait-like) – Adj D < 0 -> Poor Stress Tolerance (Typical, Trait-like)
Interpretation Of The Rorschach
Personality Style (EB)
– EB = 2.0 Or More, Then Introversive Style (e.g., 6:2) – EB = 0.5 Or Less, The Extratensive Style (e.g., 2:6) – 0.5 < EB < 2.0, Then Ambitent Style (e.g., 4:5)
• EB = Sum M Responses/Weighted Sum Chromatic Responses
Coping Resources (EA)
– eb = FM+m/Shading Responses
• EA = Sum M Responses + Weight’d Sum Chromatic Response • Present Distress (eb)
• • • • • • FM = Unmet Internal Needs m = Situation-Determined Distress Y > 1 Suggests Helplessness Induced By Situational Stress T = Trait-like Need For Affection C’ = Irritation Caused By Emotional Constraint V = Ruminative Introspection
Interpretation Of The Rorschach
Processing (Information Processing) • Cognitive Initiative And Complexity
– Zf = # Of Responses That Received Z Scores – Normals: Mean Is 40-50% Of All Responses – Low Zf = Low Intelligence Or Limited Mental Involvement In The Testing Procedure – High Zf = Mental Involvement In The Testing Procedure, Intelligent
• Organizational Activity (Zd)
– Zd < -3 :Impulsive Decision-Making When Facing Social Problems, Poor Impulse Control – Zd > +3 :Effortful Processing Of Social Problems (Overincorporation, Excessively Prudent Decision-Making)
Interpretation Of The Rorschach
Cognitive Rigidity And Dysfunction
• PSV = 1 …Normal Range Rigidity • PSV = 2 ….Neuropsych Consult Or Trait Compulsivity • CONFAB > 0 : Low IQ Or Cognitive Impairment; Neuropsych Testing Indicated • a:p (Ratio Of Active To Passive Responses)
– Cognitive Inflexibility Indicated By Ratios Greater Than 3:1 Or Greater Than 1:3
Conventionality
• P (Populars)
– Most Normals: 5-8 Populars – Low P (P <5): Low Conventionality, Undersocialized, Individualist – High P (P > 8) And Lambda < 1.5: Conventional, Highly Socialized
Interpretation Of The Rorschach
Perceptual Accuracy (Reality Testing/SocialPerception)
• F+%
– # Of Pure F Responses With + Or O Form Quality/ # Of All Pure F Responses – May Be Interpreted Only If At Least 8 Pure F Responses And Lambda Of Approximately .70 – If F+% Is .60 Or Less Then Suggests Poor Perceptual Accuracy (i.e., Poor Reality Testing)
• X+%
– # Of All Responses With Form Quality Of + Or O/ # Of All Responses – X+% > .90: Hyper-conventional, Conforming – X+% <.70: Over-commitment To Individuality, Poor Reality Testing (Poor Perceptual Accuracy), Or Difficulty Modulating Emotional Experiences
• X-%
– # Of All Responses With “-“ Form Quality/ All Responses – If X-% > .15 -> Issues With Reality Testing – If X-% > .20 -> Clinically Important Problem With Reality Testing
Interpretation Of The Rorschach
Ideation (Thought Disorder)
• Sum6 (Sum Of “Big Six” Special Scores)
– Sum6 >5 ::: Likely Thought Disorder
• WSum6 (Weighted Sum Of “Big Six” Special Scores)
– WSum6 > 11 :::: Likely Thought Disorder
• M Qual (Form Quality Of M Responses)
– M- = 1 Or 2 :: Probability Of Thought Disorder – M- > 2 ::: Pronounced Thought Disorder; Delusional Ideation Is Very Likely
Interpretation Of The Rorschach
Affect
• FC:CF+C
– >1:3 Or Greater ….Potential For Intense Displays Of Emotion – > 3:1 Or Greater…Above Average Effort To Control Displays Of Emotion
• Afr (Affective Ratio)
– Afr > .85 …seeks emotional stimulation – Afr < .44 …avoidant of emotional stimuli
Interpretation Of The Rorschach Self-Perception (Self Image)
• (3r + (2)/R) = “Egocentricity Index”
– > .42 Suggests Self-Centeredness, Narcissism – < .31 Suggests Low Self Esteem
Interpretation Of The Rorschach
Oppositionality
• S (White Space Responses)
–S = 1 Or 2 …Typical Need For Independence –S > 3 …Trait-like Oppositionality, Possible Anti-authoritarian Attitude
Interpretation Of The Rorschach
Indices
• S-con: 8+ = High Suicide Potential; 6-7 Eval Suicidality • DEPI (Depression Index): 5 Suggests Features, 6-7
Is More Definitive
• SCZI (Schizophrenia Index): 4 Then SZ Highly
Probable, 5-6 Is More Definitive
• CDI (Coping Deficit Index): 4-5+ Poor Social
Relationships/Poor Coping Ability • OBS “POS” Then OCD Or OCPD Likely • HVI (Hypervigilance Index) : “POS” Avoidant Of Social Relationships, Possible Paranoia