罗夏研究的科学批判:重新审视埃克斯纳在罗夏研究中的问题和方法(1995)

Q3 Psychology
Jason M. Smith, C. Gacono, Patrick Fontan, Enna E. Taylor, T. Cunliffe, A. Andronikof
{"title":"罗夏研究的科学批判:重新审视埃克斯纳在罗夏研究中的问题和方法(1995)","authors":"Jason M. Smith, C. Gacono, Patrick Fontan, Enna E. Taylor, T. Cunliffe, A. Andronikof","doi":"10.1027/1192-5604/a000102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Exner’s (1995a) Issues and Methods in Rorschach Research provided a standard of care for conducting Rorschach research; however, the extent to which studies have followed these guidelines has not been examined. Similarly, meta-analytic approaches have been used to comment on the validity of Exner’s Comprehensive System (CS) variables without an evaluation as to the extent that individual studies have conformed to the proposed methodological criteria (Exner, 1995a; Gacono, Loving, & Bodholdt, 2001). In this article, 210 studies cited in recent meta-analyses by Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel (2013) were examined. The studies were analyzed in terms of being research on the Rorschach versus research with the Rorschach and whether they met the threshold of validity/generalizability related to specific Rorschach criteria. Only 104 of the 210 (49.5%) studies were research on the Rorschach and none met all five Rorschach criteria assessed. Trends and the need for more stringent methods when conducting Rorschach research were presented.","PeriodicalId":39365,"journal":{"name":"Rorschachiana","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Scientific Critique of Rorschach Research: Revisiting Exner’s Issues and Methods in Rorschach Research (1995)\",\"authors\":\"Jason M. Smith, C. Gacono, Patrick Fontan, Enna E. Taylor, T. Cunliffe, A. Andronikof\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1192-5604/a000102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Exner’s (1995a) Issues and Methods in Rorschach Research provided a standard of care for conducting Rorschach research; however, the extent to which studies have followed these guidelines has not been examined. Similarly, meta-analytic approaches have been used to comment on the validity of Exner’s Comprehensive System (CS) variables without an evaluation as to the extent that individual studies have conformed to the proposed methodological criteria (Exner, 1995a; Gacono, Loving, & Bodholdt, 2001). In this article, 210 studies cited in recent meta-analyses by Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel (2013) were examined. The studies were analyzed in terms of being research on the Rorschach versus research with the Rorschach and whether they met the threshold of validity/generalizability related to specific Rorschach criteria. Only 104 of the 210 (49.5%) studies were research on the Rorschach and none met all five Rorschach criteria assessed. Trends and the need for more stringent methods when conducting Rorschach research were presented.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39365,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rorschachiana\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rorschachiana\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1192-5604/a000102\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rorschachiana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1192-5604/a000102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

Exner(1995)的《罗夏研究中的问题和方法》(Issues and Methods in Rorschach Research)为开展罗夏研究提供了一个注意标准;然而,这些研究在多大程度上遵循了这些指导方针还没有得到检验。同样,荟萃分析方法已被用于评论Exner的综合系统(CS)变量的有效性,而不评估个别研究是否符合所提出的方法标准(Exner, 1995;Gacono, Loving, & Bodholdt, 2001)。本文对Mihura、Meyer、Dumitrascu和Bombel(2013)在最近的荟萃分析中引用的210项研究进行了研究。这些研究是根据罗夏墨迹研究和罗夏墨迹研究以及它们是否符合与特定罗夏墨迹标准相关的效度/概括性阈值来分析的。210项研究中只有104项(49.5%)是关于罗夏测验的研究,没有一项符合罗夏测验的全部5项标准。提出了进行罗夏研究的趋势和需要更严格的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Scientific Critique of Rorschach Research: Revisiting Exner’s Issues and Methods in Rorschach Research (1995)
Exner’s (1995a) Issues and Methods in Rorschach Research provided a standard of care for conducting Rorschach research; however, the extent to which studies have followed these guidelines has not been examined. Similarly, meta-analytic approaches have been used to comment on the validity of Exner’s Comprehensive System (CS) variables without an evaluation as to the extent that individual studies have conformed to the proposed methodological criteria (Exner, 1995a; Gacono, Loving, & Bodholdt, 2001). In this article, 210 studies cited in recent meta-analyses by Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel (2013) were examined. The studies were analyzed in terms of being research on the Rorschach versus research with the Rorschach and whether they met the threshold of validity/generalizability related to specific Rorschach criteria. Only 104 of the 210 (49.5%) studies were research on the Rorschach and none met all five Rorschach criteria assessed. Trends and the need for more stringent methods when conducting Rorschach research were presented.
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
来源期刊
Rorschachiana
Rorschachiana Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
×
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