These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS) Psychometric Validity of Individual Variables.
    Author: Tibon Czopp S, Zeligman R.
    Journal: J Pers Assess; 2016; 98(4):335-42. PubMed ID: 27153465.
    Abstract:
    Since the publication of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (Rorschach, 1921/1942 ), theorists, researchers, and practitioners have been debating the nature of the task, its conceptual foundation, and most important its psychometric properties. The validity of the Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 1974 , 2003; Exner & Weiner, 1995 ) has been supported by several meta-analyses that used different types of nontest external criterion for validating individual variables. In a recent meta-analysis, Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel ( 2013 ) found coefficients ranging from modest to excellent for most of the selected CS variables, with 13 of them reported as showing "little to no support." This article focuses on these variables. Although endorsing Mihura et al.'s mainly validating findings, we also suggest that the evidence presented for the little or no validity of these 13 variables is not quite compelling enough to warrant changing their definition or coding, or removing them from the system. We point to some issues concerning the description and interpretation of these variables and the appropriateness of the external criteria used for exploring their validity, and suggest considering these issues in further CS research. Implications of Mihura et al.'s meta-analysis for clinical and forensic practice are discussed.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]