{"title":"Therapeutic exploration with the Rorschach Inkblot Test: a case demonstration of the lifeworld approach with a child","authors":"J. L. Yu, Q. Lee","doi":"10.1080/21507686.2021.1960399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Originally introduced by Hermann Rorschach in his seminal work Psychodiagnostics, the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) was widely recognized as a revolutionary psychological assessment. Nonetheless, Rorschach (1921) cautioned that its theoretical and conceptual foundations were still largely incomplete. Since then, most research on the test has addressed its administration, scoring criteria, and psychometric properties (Leichtman, 1996a). In the early seventies, Exner (1993) developed the Comprehensive System (CS) based on an extensive synthesis of the empirical data available at the time. The system was distinguished by its standardized procedure in administration, scoring, and coding, which is central to its reputation as an empirically grounded system. Weiner (1997) noted that the Rorschach CS had withstood decades of empirical investigation, particularly regarding issues related to inter-coder agreement, reliability, validity, and normative reference data (G. J. Meyer & Archer, 2001; Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001). Recently, the RIM has faced strong criticisms on both empirical (Lilienfeld et al., 2000; Mihura et al., 2013) and theoretical grounds (Leichtman, 2013). Nevertheless, Meyer et al. (2011) proposed the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) to replace the Rorschach CS. The R-PAS addressed several conceptual and methodological issues associated with the Rorschach CS, including concerns about its validity, norm accuracy, variable number of responses, examiner differences, and the use of raw scores for interpretation. In light of these improvements, Meyer (2017) contended that the RIM remains a valid and unique assessment of personality and psychological processes. On the other hand, Kleiger (1993) highlighted David Rapaport’s contributions to the historical development of the Rorschach test, such as his emphasis on the integration of theory and test data as well as the significance of the patient–examiner relationship. Taken together, Rapaport’s original system and its modified versions were considered as an early endeavour to transcend the mechanical application of the test and promote a more individualized, theory-driven (i.e., ego psychology) interpretation of the data. Nonetheless, the core premise of the Rorschach test is based on hypothetical connections between perception and personality. Phenomenology takes issue with the","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21507686.2021.1960399","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507686.2021.1960399","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Originally introduced by Hermann Rorschach in his seminal work Psychodiagnostics, the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) was widely recognized as a revolutionary psychological assessment. Nonetheless, Rorschach (1921) cautioned that its theoretical and conceptual foundations were still largely incomplete. Since then, most research on the test has addressed its administration, scoring criteria, and psychometric properties (Leichtman, 1996a). In the early seventies, Exner (1993) developed the Comprehensive System (CS) based on an extensive synthesis of the empirical data available at the time. The system was distinguished by its standardized procedure in administration, scoring, and coding, which is central to its reputation as an empirically grounded system. Weiner (1997) noted that the Rorschach CS had withstood decades of empirical investigation, particularly regarding issues related to inter-coder agreement, reliability, validity, and normative reference data (G. J. Meyer & Archer, 2001; Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001). Recently, the RIM has faced strong criticisms on both empirical (Lilienfeld et al., 2000; Mihura et al., 2013) and theoretical grounds (Leichtman, 2013). Nevertheless, Meyer et al. (2011) proposed the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) to replace the Rorschach CS. The R-PAS addressed several conceptual and methodological issues associated with the Rorschach CS, including concerns about its validity, norm accuracy, variable number of responses, examiner differences, and the use of raw scores for interpretation. In light of these improvements, Meyer (2017) contended that the RIM remains a valid and unique assessment of personality and psychological processes. On the other hand, Kleiger (1993) highlighted David Rapaport’s contributions to the historical development of the Rorschach test, such as his emphasis on the integration of theory and test data as well as the significance of the patient–examiner relationship. Taken together, Rapaport’s original system and its modified versions were considered as an early endeavour to transcend the mechanical application of the test and promote a more individualized, theory-driven (i.e., ego psychology) interpretation of the data. Nonetheless, the core premise of the Rorschach test is based on hypothetical connections between perception and personality. Phenomenology takes issue with the