罗夏墨迹测验的治疗探索:一个儿童生活世界方法的案例示范

Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/21507686.2021.1960399
J. L. Yu, Q. Lee
{"title":"罗夏墨迹测验的治疗探索:一个儿童生活世界方法的案例示范","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

罗夏墨迹法(Rorschach Inkblot Method, RIM)最初是由赫尔曼·罗夏在他的开创性著作《精神诊断》中提出的,被广泛认为是一种革命性的心理评估方法。尽管如此,罗夏(1921)警告说,它的理论和概念基础在很大程度上仍然不完整。从那时起,大多数关于测试的研究都涉及其管理,评分标准和心理测量特性(Leichtman, 1996a)。在70年代早期,Exner(1993)基于对当时可用的经验数据的广泛综合,开发了综合系统(CS)。该系统的特点是其在管理、评分和编码方面的标准化程序,这是其作为经验基础系统的声誉的核心。Weiner(1997)指出,罗夏量表经受住了几十年的实证调查,特别是在编码间一致性、可靠性、有效性和规范性参考数据方面(G. J. Meyer & Archer, 2001;Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001)。最近,RIM面临着两方面的强烈批评(Lilienfeld et al., 2000;Mihura et al., 2013)和理论依据(Leichtman, 2013)。尽管如此,Meyer等人(2011)提出了罗夏绩效评估系统(R-PAS)来取代罗夏量表。R-PAS解决了与罗夏测验CS相关的几个概念和方法问题,包括对其有效性、规范准确性、可变回答数、考官差异以及使用原始分数进行解释的关注。鉴于这些改进,Meyer(2017)认为RIM仍然是对人格和心理过程的有效和独特的评估。另一方面,Kleiger(1993)强调了David Rapaport对罗夏测验历史发展的贡献,例如他强调理论和测试数据的整合,以及患者-检查者关系的重要性。总的来说,Rapaport的原始系统及其修改版本被认为是早期的尝试,超越了测试的机械应用,促进了对数据的更个性化、理论驱动(即自我心理学)的解释。尽管如此,罗夏测试的核心前提是基于感知和人格之间的假设联系。现象学与
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Therapeutic exploration with the Rorschach Inkblot Test: a case demonstration of the lifeworld approach with a child
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信