Analysis And Criticisms Of The Rorschach

many, the word Rorschach is quite unknown and to others it is simply known as the inkblot test and even then, the real meaning of the Rorschach test is never acknowledged. The Rorschach inkblot test is a psychological projective test of personality in which a subject’s interpretation of ten standard abstract designs are analyzed as measure of emotional and intellectual functioning and combination. Also, like other projective techniques, “it is based on the principle that subjects viewing neutral, ambiguous stimuli will project their own personalities onto them, thereby revealing a variety of unconscious conflicts and motivations.” (Aronow; p 25)

Since the development of Eyesnckpersonality theory, numerous measures were developedto assess the varioustraits of personality. However, one of the outcomeof this process has been a progressive increase in their length. This increase in length can be accounted for by the introduction of an additional dimension of personality within Eyesnck's scheme (Eyesnck&Eyesnck, 1976) and by the psychometric principle that

The next Rorschach test is used to determine the psychological traits of personality. The test originally was created in 1920 to determine thought disorder. It was developed from the observation that schizophrenia patients often interpret ambiguous images in very unusual ways. During the test, the participant is shown a series of inkblot cards and directed to respond to each with what the inkblot looks like.

The most efficient way to measure someone's personality is to observe how they behave, however, the behavioural observation method is seldom used in research. Behavioural data (reports) can help collect information about normal and abnormal personality characteristics and ways of thinking. To obtain behavioural observation data, researchers directly observe and record the behaviour of people in a laboratory or a more naturalistic (real-world) setting. This method is useful because many behaviours can be assessed through direct observation. Usually, two or more researchers conduct such observations to ensure higher accuracy and reliability (Schultz & Schultz, 2017) and although this method of data collection does

Reliability has a long history as one of the key psychometric properties of a test, but a given test might not measure people equally reliably (Hu, Nesselroade, Erbacher, Boker, Burt, Keel & ... Klump, 2016). Test scores from some individuals might have considerably greater error than others. It has a lot to do with the consistency of the test subject’s performance on the test. While there are several methods for estimating test reliability, the four major types are inter-rater, test-retest, parallel, and internal consistency (Heneman, Judge, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).

Test purpose: This development was to be a “projective practice for clinical assessment and diagnosis” (Rorschach, 2001).

The Jung Typology Test (JTT) has provided an insight into my personality, and I believe in some areas the test has not been very accurate while in others it has been very precise. I have provided my answers based on the situations that I have encountered and the way I reacted. For example, the question about the way I relied on my experience compared to theoretical alternatives was an appropriate question to test my personality. Experience has helped me to make the decisions about situations that I encounter on a daily basis. The test is the perfect tool to test an individual’s

2003 analyzed the test items as a whole with a Rasch analysis. They also analyzed the three subtests individually with Cronbach’s alpha, and then explored the verbal, numerical, and figural content of each subtest using a multidimensional random-coefficients multinomial logit model (Sternberg, et al., 2006). These analyses demonstrated that the STAT works best as a three-factor, between item model (analytical, practical, creative), as opposed to a one-factor model (Sternberg, et al., 2006). Furthermore, Sternberg et al. 2006 also demonstrated that a three-factor model (verbal, numerical, figural), within each subtest was only necessary for the analytical subtest. That being said, reliability measures of the three subtests were not high. Measures of .67, .56, and .72 for analytical, practical, and creative subtests, respectively, were provided (Sternberg et al., 2006). Moreover, the Rasch analysis of the STAT, as a whole, were slightly

In this meta-analysis, it included 4,378 MMPI and 1,793 the Rorschach articles. Then, the validity coefficients of the MMPI and the Rorschach Inkblot Test were compared. They found that the MMPI had the unweighted mean validity coefficients of .30 whereas the Rorschach had .29. The MMPI was more valid for studies using psychiatric diagnoses and self-report. In contrast, the Rorschach Inkblot Test was more valid for the objective. This meta-analysis showed that both the MMPI and the Rorschach Inkblot Test were valid in some

The interpretive procedure, the 4’s, provides a significant structure to organize the key findings of the Rorschach inkblot assessment by modifying and adjusting the interpretations based on idiographic factors. This procedure is categorized into four steps: Scan, Sift, Synthesize, and Summarize. The first step is a brief preemptive step where the assessor scans over the scores in order to look for any extreme scores to give them a better idea of what they might find in the following steps. Sifting is the next step where the clinician carefully goes through all of the results, noting the standard score for each variable, section by section. The purpose of shifting is to formulate a preliminary interpretation by considering each score guided

In this write up, the different scales of measurement, nominal scale, ordinal scale, interval and ratio are discussed, including examples of test types that would usually employ them. Also, measures of central tendency, and measures of variability and their effect on test suitability are addressed in the second half of this piece.

This is due to the Rorschach scoring methods being un-standardized and therefore provided varied and inconsistent results. Other problems relate to the examiner rather than psychometric properties which include lack of relevant training and experience in scoring methods. The Holtzman inkblot test was designed to overcome many of the problems with the Rorschach test. In this test, subjects are only required to give one response per card. The scoring method was also standardized, to allow accurate consistent results.

The personality test “Kersey Temperament Sorter II” was to know what kind of personality of the four temperaments (Guardians, Artisans, Idealist, and Rational) do I have. The questions were based on my daily life, opinions, interest, and feelings. It was a personal question, in how would I react under various circumstances in a daily life. The questions were easier, simple to answer and short, where you give to know yourself. It was a psychological test where they evaluate your skills and aspects of your personality that most influence your future. The questions were to find the main characteristics of your character to deduce your personality for example what things you prefer, how you consider yourself ,what would you do in your daily life. My overall impression of the question used in this personality assessment was impressive because just with a few question it can describe your personality, even if you know yourself but no one else does and "Kersey Temperament Sorter II "describe you perfectly. I was surprised how the psychologist can interact with people and discover how each person behaves trough this test. There is usually no” good” or “bad” answer, as they seek compatibility of your personality. The questions are neutral and no one is going to judge because of there are four temperaments personalities and each one is different. You need to answer the questions with honesty to find your personality and is interesting how “Kersey Temperament

absence of a normative scoring system for responses. The original scoring system devised in 1943 by Henry Murray, one of the authors of the TAT, attempted to account for every variable that it measures. Murray 's scoring system is time-consuming and unwieldy, and as a result has been little used by later interpreters. Other scoring systems have since been introduced that focus on one or two specific variables—for example, hostility or depression. While these systems are more practical for clinical use, they lack comprehensiveness. No single system presently used for scoring the TAT has achieved widespread acceptance. The basic drawback of any scoring system in evaluating responses to the TAT story cards is that information that is not relevant to that particular system is simply lost.

Raymond Cattell (1905-1998) remained to be one of the biggest influential researchers in the fields of personality, intelligence and the science of measuring psychological capacities and developments in the twentieth century. Cattell’s publications made most important contributions to theories of personality and operational procedures in psychometrics stay among the most referred to of all psychologists (Revelle, 2014). The aim of this paper is to critically evaluate R. Cattell’s impact in the arena of personality. Furthermore, the essay will demonstrate most significant achievements of R. Cattell’s work to personality research and theory development.