The Rorschach Inkblot Test
Essay Preview: The Rorschach Inkblot Test
Report this essay
The Rorschach Inkblot Technique
Sherri Henley
Test and Measurement, Park University
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
The Rorschach Inkblot Technique was created by Herman Rorschach, a psychiatrist from Zurich, Switzerland. The technique was formally presented to the world in 1921 with his publication of the monograph Psychodiagnostik. It included his ten selected inkblots, clinical findings, and the theoretical bases for his investigations. The ten blots consist of nearly symmetrical inkblot designs, each printed and centered on a piece of white cardboard. Each inkblot design has its unique characteristics indicated by Rorschach. Each blot tends to provoke typical responses due to its form, color, shading, and white spaces. To date, the widest application of the Rorschach Inkblot Technique is in the field of mental health in the public and private institutions and practice. Despite attacks from the field of psychology, the Rorschach technique remains on of the most extensively used and thoroughly researched techniques (Durand, Blachard, & Mindell, 1988).
II. TEST DESCRIPTION
The Rorschach technique is considered to be a projective test where the subjects are requested to tell the examiner what the inkblots remind them of. The unstructured nature of the inkblot test encourages individualized responses. It is used to assess the structure of personality with particular emphasis on how individuals construct their experience and the meanings. The subject must draw on their personal internal images, ideas, and relationships in order to create a response.
One job for the examiner is to help create the relaxed but controlled atmosphere particularly important for obtaining a useful Rorschach protocol. Several factors must be considered in preparing the subject for examination. They include: 1) atmosphere, 2) seating arrangement of the subject and examiner and test equipment, and 3) instructions. The subject must be made to feel at ease yet he/she must understand the tasks that are required. The examiner as well as the subject should be able to see the inkblot cards during administration of the test. There are no set instructions for starting the inkblot cards; however, the ten inkblot cards should be arranged in order facing downward on the table. Exner (1993) recommends that the examiner hand the subject the first card and ask, “What might this be?”. A pen or pencil and paper should be provided to the subject for responses. All answers must be written down accurately. The examiner should time the interval that starts when the subject first sees the card and ends when they make their first response. All reactions from the subject must be noted. A subject who produces fewer than fourteen responses should be immediately retested and provided with a request to provide more responses (Exner, 1993).
Each Rorschach response is scored by five major scoring categories: Location, Determinant, Content, Popularity, and Form Level. The scoring categories appear easy but the specifics are very complex. The location of the responses refers to the area of the inkblot was the concept seen. There are five main categories of location scores: whole, large usual detail, small usual detail, unusual detail, and white space. There are subcategories for the whole and unusual detail categories. The determinant is how the concept was seen. It consist of four categories for scores: form, movement, shading, and color. There are subcategories for each category. What the subject matter of the concept seen refers to the content. It includes many categories. How commonly is the concept seen by other subject refers to popularity. Each response gets a score based on how popular the response. How accurate is the concept seen refers to form level. The form level rating is applied to all responses. Form level is based on three considerations: accuracy, specification, and organization.
III. TECHNICAL EVALUATION
Although it seems clear that the Rorschach Inkblot Technique yields valuable information the question of validity