I. Projective Methods
 

Based on the 'projective hypothesis"
This holds that an individual puts structure on an ambiguous situation in a way that is consistent with their own conscious & unconscious needs.

Is an indirect method- testee is talking about something other than him/her self.

• Reduces temptation to fake
• Doesn't depend as much on verbal abilities
• Taps both conscious & unconscious traits
• Focus is clinical perspective - not normative - but has developed norms over the years

II. Inkblots: The Rorschach - Hermann Rorschach
 

inkblots used by others before Rorschach
10 bilaterally symmetrical - mirror image inkblots (5= B&W; 2= B&W&R; 3=multicolored)

Administration = 3 rounds - open-ended, inquiry, testing-the-limits
Scoring = content + location + latency to first response + determinants , popularity, form quality , Organizational Ability

Reliability= hard to determine -split-half no good-nor test-retest- only one = inter- scorer (look at scoring (good) & at interpretation of scores (no so good)
Led to Criteria for interpretation - Thought Disorder Index

Validity= holds up for convergent validity but not discriminative or predictive
Needs to be treated as a structured interview & interpreted by an experienced clinician

Exner's system
Until him Beck & Klopfer (+ 3 others) were the biggies hated each other - Exner studied with both. Beck & Klopfer - wanted to create a system that would use the best of all five - "Comprehensive System" - has norms

Use with children=mixed results

apperception from apperceive = to perceive in terms of past experience
originally used to herlp patients in analysis fantasize
30 pictures + 1 blank - use 20 some are male, some female, some child, some all

Testee gives story - beginning middle end - describes what people are feeling

Scoring - based on Henry Murray's personality thery- (same as EPPS) - looking at "need" "press" and "thema"--assume person identifies with protagonist

Reliability - inter-scorer -good but dioesn't extend to interpretation
 

• Many situational factors (e.g. age of examiner) as well as transient internal need states (e.g. hunger)can affect results
• Different cards have different "pulls"-pull out stories with a particular theme
• Even things such as intelligence enter in
• Susceptible to faking

Interpretation based on stories, testee behavior while telling

Validity

• some OK some not - in spite of this still widely used

IV. Pictures: Other Picture Tests
 

• Thompson version,
• CAT (animals) and CAT-H, (humans)
• Senior AT,
• Blacky Picture Test - dog
• Picture Story Test - adolescents
• Education Apperception Test -attitudes towards learning
• Michigan Picture Test - children 8-14
• TEMAS - hispanic children
• Make-A-Picture Story- make own pictures from figures 6yrs & up

APT - Apperceptive Personality Test - attempt to address shortcomings of TAT and have objective scoring
 

• eight cards -recognizable people in real life settings
• multiple choice questions after story
• see table page 450 for comparison with TAT

V. Words: Word Association Tests
 

Galton - first to use it
Use not only content but reaction time
Jung - words that represented potential areas of conflict - led to:

Word Associastion Test (Rappaport. Gill & Shafer) - 60 words- some neutral some traumatic

• scored by popularity, content, reaction time, test-retest responses
• has normative data
• 3 parts : 1-fast as can; 2 - repeat ansewers; 3- inquiry

Kent-Rosanoff Free Association Test

• 100 stimulus words all supposed to be neutral & common
• norms based on 1,000 normal adults-yielded frequency tables
• didn't hold up as a diagnostic tool - but still used

Consist of stems - general or specific - theory based or not

Washington University Sentence Completion Test

• based on Loevinger's theory of ego development
• measure of self-concept
• good reliability - some evideence of predictive validity

Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank

• most popular
• 40 items - three levels- high school up
• covers several categories-family attitudes, social & sexual
• attitudes, general attitudes, & character traits.
• normative data for college only
• reliability in 80's & 90's
• susceptible to faking

difficulties with establishment of psychomeric properties - since hard to do
reliability, can't do validity
have not been shown to represent self - but- do represent bodily concerns
are affected by artistic abiity of examinee
more expert clinicians - not necessarily better judges

Draw-A-Person Test (Karen Machover)

• analyze characteristics: time taken, placement of drawing, size, symmetry, facial expressions
• Various systems have been devised to try and objectify scoring & use for diagnostic purposes

House-Tree-Person Test (Buck)

• can be used to identify abused children

Draw-An-Animal

Kinetic Family Drawing (KFD)

• info about family system
• various scoring systems available

VIII. CLOSE-UP: Draw-A-Person Screening Pocedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP- SPED) - Naglieri et al
 

Based on idea that drawing unusual features in drawings signals emotional problems. - used just to indicate need for further exploration
 

• 3 drawings - man, woman, themselves
• time is measured - 5 minute limit
• standardized on 2260 people (6 - 17) based on census
• 47 criteria and 8 areas used in scoring
• converted to T scores- cutoff of 55.3
• internal consistency = OK
• discriminant validity looks OK but doesn't hold up - not strong
• should look at "hits" vs "misses"

IX. CONCERNS ABOUT PROJECTIVE METHODS
 

Their Assumptions

• Too many other variables besides internal feelings enter into drawings
• Stimuli may not be as ambiguous as assumed to be
• Every aspect does not necessarily relate to a personality attribute
• Assumes existence of unconscious & its influence on behavior

Situational Variables
 

• If really tap unconscious- should not be affected by testing situation
• but they are influenced by many things both interpersonal & situational
• Problems also with other things entering into interpretations

Psychometric Considerations
 

• Many studies not properly done - difficult to measure reliability much less validity
• Big argument betweeen academicians & clinicians over usefulness of instruments