New Rorschach Performance Assessment System

[aequitasveritas]

The new R-PAS is complete and available.

It is much more streamlined than the CS, and it's worth taking a look at and at least reading through the website.

http://www.r-pas.org/About.aspx

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[aequitasveritas]

bump

 

[erg923]

Bump. Puke. Cue my PTSD from having to learn the CS in graduate school...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It is scary that people still use the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool.

*edit*

At least they are trying to make it evidenced-based, but it is still a projective, which I have a hard time accepting as sufficient for diagnostic purposes.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Erg, I am posting this because it's a new development in the field; an important one. What the hell is your problem?

 

[aequitasveritas]

It is scary that people still use the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool.

T, you really need to get a bit more informed and up to date on it's validity

 

[erg923]

Erg, I am posting this because it's a new development in the field; an important one. What the hell is your problem?

I think I stated that pretty clearly in my first post.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

T, you really need to get a bit more informed and up to date on it's validity

During my training I was forced to learn the Rorscach and Extner System, and while it was interesting on an intellectual level, I didn't trust it as a diagnostic instrument. I didn't think there was sufficient peer reviewed support for it then, and more recent review of the literature has done nothing but support that opinion.

More recently I have poked around in the literature about its use within the legal system, and I have not found sufficient evidence that it should even be admissable or considered on par with objective assessment measures. When a person's freedom and possible threat to being is on the line, I do not want to rely on an assessment that has such a spotty research history.

 

[erg923]

During my training I was forced to learn the Rorscach and Extner System, and while it was interesting on an intellectual level, I didn't trust it as a diagnostic instrument. I didn't think there was sufficient peer reviewed support for it then, and more recent review of the literature has done nothing but support that opinion.

More recently I have poked around in the literature about its use within the legal system, and I have not found sufficient evidence that it should even be admissable or considered on par with objective assessment measures. When a person's freedom and possible threat to being is on the line, I do not want to rely on an assessment that has such a spotty research history.

To make this more productive and interesting, and to tie it back to our recent threads about research/publishing, its is quite amazing to me that ppl can interpret the same body of (supposedly objective) research so differently.

On one side you have the camp that acknowleges the few potetial benefits and strong points of the Ror CS, but otherwise largely pans it...based on "the literature." On the other side, you have ppl who conclude that it is a very powerful instrument, on par with the MMPI in many psychometric categories, and is continually trashed for no good reason...based on "the literature." Again, this highlights one of my frustrations with, and compliants about, research in this field. I'm not sure it really matters what the literature says most of the time, because the other side will always just argue about the others (flawed) study design/methodology for drawing those conslusions.

 

[cara susanna]

I'm learning the Rorschach and TAT pretty soon, my placement uses them.

 

[aequitasveritas]

During my training I was forced to learn the Rorscach and Extner System, and while it was interesting on an intellectual level, I didn't trust it as a diagnostic instrument. I didn't think there was sufficient peer reviewed support for it then, and more recent review of the literature has done nothing but support that opinion.

More recently I have poked around in the literature about its use within the legal system, and I have not found sufficient evidence that it should even be admissable or considered on par with objective assessment measures. When a person's freedom and possible threat to being is on the line, I do not want to rely on an assessment that has such a spotty research history.

I'm just going to disagree and leave it at that. In the other Rorschach thread I responded to these critiques with sources that made the case pretty clear.

Moreover, a comprehensive assessment included evidence from both self-report and performance-based measures. Where did you get this idea of one or the other?

As far as Erg goes...go ahead man. Do your things like you always do..arrogant and laughable as always.

Anyone who would like to learn a bit more about the latest Rorschach technology and research, feel free to browse the link above

 

[erg923]

I'm just going to disagree and leave it at that. In the other Rorschach thread I responded to these critiques with sources that made the case pretty clear.

Moreover, a comprehensive assessment included evidence from both self-report and performance-based measures. Where did you get this idea of one or the other?

As far as Erg goes...go ahead man. Do your things like you always do..arrogant and laughable as always.

Anyone who would like to learn a bit more about the latest Rorschach technology and research, feel free to browse the link above

Relax pal. I simply stated that I found the tedious CS system to be difficult to learn and largely a fruitless endeavor since I've never been anywhere that actually uses it. My university clinic wouldnt have touched it with a 10 meter cattle prod and its not really used much in b-med and neuropsych settings...sorry.

And, yes, I do tend to get quite a few chuckles from my patients. Thanks for the compliment.

 

[aequitasveritas]

And, yes, I do tend to get quite a few chuckles from my patients. Thanks for the compliment.

Erg, I have no doubt that your patients laugh at you

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

rorschach is a dinosaur of a tool that will fade out.

 

[aequitasveritas]

rorschach is a dinosaur of a tool that will fade out.

A cumbersome test indeed. I agree with that all the way. It may in fact phase out as you say, especially as psych follows the medical model and tries to McDonaldize everything these days.

 

[psychgeek]

I have not found sufficient evidence that it should even be admissable or considered on par with objective assessment measures. When a person's freedom and possible threat to being is on the line, I do not want to rely on an assessment that has such a spotty research history.

Then you disagree with the several US district courts and the 11th, 4th, and 9th circuit courts of appeals. The latest federal judge with whom you disagree sits in the New Mexico District and rendered an opinion in August. In it the Rorschach was admitted as evidence satifying the Daubert test.

United States v. Ganadonegro, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95201

The Rorschach has never been held inadmissible in a federal court since the Daubert test was established. There are no substantial state court decisions holding it as inadmissible.

There can be debate about whether or not the added value of the Rorschach is worth the time cost of administration. There can even be some debate about whether or not the Rorschach is valid (although, it should be said that even Lilienfeld doesn't make this extreme of a claim). There is no debate about the Rorschach's admissibility in court.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The Rorschach has never been held inadmissible in a federal court since the Daubert test was established. There are no substantial state court decisions holding it as inadmissible.

There can be debate about whether or not the added value of the Rorschach is worth the time cost of administration. There can even be some debate about whether or not the Rorschach is valid (although, it should be said that even Lilienfeld doesn't make this extreme of a claim). There is no debate about the Rorschach's admissibility in court.

To clarify, I didn't say it wasn't admissible, I said I didn't believe it should be admissible. I understand the courts position on it, but I disagree that it sufficiently meets the "reliability" criteria of Daubert.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Refer to the SPA white paper on the Ror reliability and validity

"We recognize that differences of opinion are crucial to the scientific enterprise and we welcome
rigorous investigations of specific claims for the validity of specific Rorschach indices, as we do with all
personality assessment techniques. We also recognize that the use of particular instruments in practice
is, in part, a matter of personal preference. However, we disagree with the wholesale rejection or
discounting of any particular technique where the scientific data do not warrant it. Therefore, it is the
position of the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment that the Rorschach possesses
documented reliability and validity similar to other generally accepted test instruments used in the
assessment of personality and psychopathology and that its responsible use in personality assessment is
appropriate and justified."

As far as incremental validity check out work by Donald Viglione

 

[aequitasveritas]

To clarify, I didn't say it wasn't admissible, I said I didn't believe it should be admissible. I understand the courts position on it, but I disagree that it sufficiently meets the "reliability" criteria of Daubert.

From SPA
" Rorschach and Legal Settings
We wish to address as well challenges to the use of the Rorschach in court. While court and
legal settings require a higher level of expertise in the use of the Rorschach for expert testimony, articles
summarizing the utility of the Rorschach as an instrument indicate that the Rorschach meets the variety
of legal tests for admissibility, including validity, publication in peer reviewed journals, and acceptance
within the relevant professional community"

Gacono, Evans, and Viglione (2002); Hilsenroth and Stricker (2004); McCann (1998); Ritzler et al. (2002a, 2002b).

 

[FadedC]

Well I have a reasonably open mind about the rorshach and the use of projectives. I'm still learning about it and I've read arguments on both sides. But I do have to say that if I were looking for a neutral and unbiased review of the utility of the rorshach, that I would not turn to a group called the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Well I have a reasonably open mind about the rorshach and the use of projectives. I'm still learning about it and I've read arguments on both sides. But I do have to say that if I were looking for a neutral and unbiased review of the utility of the rorshach, that I would not turn to a group called the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods.

Above is from the Society of Personality Assessment. The International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods is a submembership but did not produce the SPA white paper on the Rorschach

 

[FadedC]

Above is from the Society of Personality Assessment. The International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods is a submembership but did not produce the SPA white paper on the Rorschach

Ah my mistake. Still one would imagine that a society dedicated to the promotion of personality assessment might not be the most neutral source when it comes to making a judgement about something like this, particularly when they have a subgroup specifically devoted to the Rorshach.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Ah my mistake. Still one would imagine that a society dedicated to the promotion of personality assessment might not be the most neutral source when it comes to making a judgement about something like this, particularly when they have a subgroup specifically devoted to the Rorshach.

I think you should reconsider your position; I think you are a little misinformed.

Some of the most prominent opponents of the Rorschach are also part of the SPA. James N. Butcher, Theodore Millon, and Robert Archer are all executive committe members. I think the first two need no introduction, but Archer has been a critic of much of the work that has come out on the Ror.

 

[FadedC]

Some of the most prominent opponents of the Rorschach are also part of the SPA. James N. Butcher, Theodore Millon, and Robert Archer are all executive committe members. I think the first two need no introduction, but Archer has been a critic of much of the work that has come out on the Ror.

Duly noted. It is still difficult for me to view the SPA as a whole as being neutral on this issue, but I'll take into account that they do have members with different view points.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Duly noted. It is still difficult for me to view the SPA as a whole as being neutral on this issue, but I'll take into account that they do have members with different view points.

Support is not the same outside of the SPA. I know in the neuropsych world, it is generally not well accepted.

 

[psychgeek]

Support is not the same outside of the SPA. I know in the neuropsych world, it is generally not well accepted.

That might be because it does not test neuropsychological constructs.

 

[futureapppsy2]

FWIW, my emotional-personality assessment professor said that she believes projectives can be good in building rapport but not that useful in actual diagnosis, especially when your assessment could be taken to court (as is the case in schools).

 

[aequitasveritas]

FWIW, my emotional-personality assessment professor said that she believes projectives can be good in building rapport but not that useful in actual diagnosis, especially when your assessment could be taken to court (as is the case in schools).

That is absurd. No offense, but your professor is straight up wrong. It is bucu valud for assessing psychosis, BPD, and a host of other things. Like any test, it is supposed to be integrated with other tests. Good assessments combine self-report and performance-based measures to answer clinical questions.

Moreover, diagnosis is not the only purpose of an assessment. Details about someones perceptual experience are very important.

For example, a thematic scale called the Mutuality of Autonomy, created by Urist at Yale in 77, assesses perceptual experiences of relationships... mutually enhancing to destructive on a continuum. It has strong reliability and validity in the literature and is included in the new R-PAS system. This is not a scale that is used for diagnosis per se, although if you were using the PDM it would come in handy. But, it is hugely important for information the client needs to know.

I really feel like a key dilemma on SDN is that most posters have not been in private practice, and have not done ecologically valid real-world assessments.

I also think the assessment training at many schools is to the left of acceptable.

 

[FadedC]

That is absurd. No offense, but your professor is straight up wrong.

Well I mean you may disagree with that opinion, but I wouldn't necesarily call is absurd given that I've met many experienced professionals who also have that opinion. I have of course also met ones who would strongly disagree with them. But my impression has been that right or wrong, the use of projectives is nothing if not highly controversial.

 

[Ollie123]

Its admittedly been about 4 years since I really looked hard at the Rorschach literature and remember being extremely underwhelmed with both the quantity and quality of it, but then again I felt that way about much less controversial measures too (e.g. MMPI). I just generally dislike the sort of "branding" that seems to go on with assessment tools (not by any means just the Rorschach)...it seems like the clinical psychology equivalent of drug reps and pharmaceutical companies. There is usually a significant and readily apparent amount of "spin", and it muddies the literature. That's not to say it isn't present in other areas too, but it seems more pronounced in assessment just because people are often more directly invested (and sometimes have financial incentives in) a particular method, whereas theory is more amorphous and malleable, and even intervention is at least a little more amorphous.

This is a nightmare semester, but I'm curious to check out the new system in the spring and see if any major improvements to the literature have come about recently. I'm admittedly not trained on it and likely never will be given even if we take at face value that it is valid and useful for the things it claims to be valid and useful for, its still largely irrelevant to anything I'm ever likely to be doing...so if it comes down to having to choose, it basically just boils down to my time being far better spent learning wavelet analysis or something that would likely help me personally.

Just two additional comments:
1) SPA may have anti-Rorschach members, but they certainly have pro-Rorschach ones as well. Just like APA, it seems entirely likely they wouldn't make any statement that might alienate a portion of their membership. That doesn't say anything about the evidence itself (the potential for bias doesn't mean it impacted the outcome), but I do think its perfectly reasonable to take it with a grain of salt. I do the same with APA...a lot of their statements are definitely designed not to "alienate" anyone.
2) AQ - I'm just curious...how does private practice assessment differ from say, assessment in other clinical settings? Maybe I misunderstood but I just have no idea where you would be going with that statement...I'm not sure how an inpatient unit at a community hospital, an outpatient unit at a CMHC, etc. are any less "real-world" than private practice or how that is relevant. Would the Rorschach be more efficient in PP? Would it somehow be more valid in those populations? I can get when people talk about academic medical centers with endless resources, tightly controlled patient populations, etc. as not the "real world" but I've never heard anyone isolate PP in that way before.

 

[Jegg]

Even some of the staunchest critics of the Rorschach concede that there are five Rorschach scores that meet their standards of validity (Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb 2000). To wit, Greene (2000) points out that some of the MMPI-2 scales fall short of the above authors' criteria.

A primary argument supported by the SPA is one made by Meyer, Finn, Eyde, Kay, Moreland, Dies, et al. (2001) that the Rorschach has utility and validity in cross comparison with instruments used in other fields of study, such as medicine. Likewise the Rorschach has incremental validity and discriminative validity that makes it useful in conjunction with other assessment instruments (Viglione, 1999).

Personally, the research I did on it would lead me to be wary of placing too much weight on scores that have a paucity of research when performing assessments. I have no issue with using Rorschach scores that have established a good amount of research support as assessment tools. I do think it is great to continue researching and developing scores that still show a dearth of evidence as they may prove themselves useful over time. I would definitely avoid scores that have not been proven valid or reliable despite considerable research.

People of course are free to think whatever they want, but I would recommend researching a decent portion of the literature on the controversy before making definitive statements one way or the other. I wouldn't take someone's opinion on the issue at face value either.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

That is absurd. No offense, but your professor is straight up wrong. It is bucu valud for assessing psychosis, BPD, and a host of other things. Like any test, it is supposed to be integrated with other tests. Good assessments combine self-report and performance-based measures to answer clinical questions.

Moreover, diagnosis is not the only purpose of an assessment. Details about someones perceptual experience are very important.

For example, a thematic scale called the Mutuality of Autonomy, created by Urist at Yale in 77, assesses perceptual experiences of relationships... mutually enhancing to destructive on a continuum. It has strong reliability and validity in the literature and is included in the new R-PAS system. This is not a scale that is used for diagnosis per se, although if you were using the PDM it would come in handy. But, it is hugely important for information the client needs to know.

I really feel like a key dilemma on SDN is that most posters have not been in private practice, and have not done ecologically valid real-world assessments.

I also think the assessment training at many schools is to the left of acceptable.

Here here!! The Rorschach is not a projective test in the Exner system. It is distressing to hear doctoral level students and psychologists who should know better referring to this as a "projective test." Today it is regarded as a cognitive perceptual task which can be a rich source of hypotheses about the client. Many of the indices have good predictive validity. Sadly the nature of the task does not allow standard estimates of reliability to be easily computed. It is ironic that some psychologists eschew the Rorschach as being a poor diagnostic instrument as compared to the MMPI-2 or PAI. Yet the more "reliable" diagnoses these more objective measures supposedly give and the supporting research are based on an overarching diagnostic system (the DSM-IV) that has absolutely no established validity whatsoever. Oh the irony!

 

[aequitasveritas]

2) AQ - I'm just curious...how does private practice assessment differ from say, assessment in other clinical settings? Maybe I misunderstood but I just have no idea where you would be going with that statement...I'm not sure how an inpatient unit at a community hospital, an outpatient unit at a CMHC, etc. are any less "real-world" than private practice or how that is relevant. Would the Rorschach be more efficient in PP? Would it somehow be more valid in those populations? I can get when people talk about academic medical centers with endless resources, tightly controlled patient populations, etc. as not the "real world" but I've never heard anyone isolate PP in that way before.

I admit that I made a partially inaccurate statement. Let me clarify what I meant.

Of course, any clinical situation where an assessment is completed is ecologically valid.

I do feel that there are a few differences between PP and inpatient & CMHC assessment styles that do affect "real world" assessment...I should say- the comprehensive/integrated assessment style that any good training should promote is not promoted in the inpatient & CMHC setting for good reasons. It's too cumbersome and it;s not necessary for the presenting problems or diagnostic issues of a ward or community clinic....but thats where many people are trained.
...Ur just not often going to do a full; comprehensive assessment using both self-report and performance based methods, integrate the data, reduce it into condensed and meaningful language, make a version for the client, have a session where you explain the results etc.
In PP I do this for most of my assessments; it satisfies the notion that assessments should incorporate multiples sources of valid and robust data...the Ror being one of those sources.

In many training venues this is no longer considered a priority and this I become a little frustrated when I have to explain the validity of the R-PAS or CS, or the reasons to use performance-based assessments in general, to someone who knows nothing past a cursory intro class and who has no assessment experience except using self-report measures like the SCIDS, and SCL90 and the MMPI-2.

 

[aequitasveritas]

Here here!! The Rorschach is not a projective test in the Exner system. It is distressing to hear doctoral level students and psychologists who should know better referring to this as a "projective test." Today it is regarded as a cognitive perceptual task which can be a rich source of hypotheses about the client. Many of the indices have good predictive validity. Sadly the nature of the task does not allow standard estimates of reliability to be easily computed. It is ironic that some psychologists eschew the Rorschach as being a poor diagnostic instrument as compared to the MMPI-2 or PAI. Yet the more "reliable" diagnoses these more objective measures supposedly give and the supporting research are based on an overarching diagnostic system (the DSM-IV) that has absolutely no established validity whatsoever. Oh the irony!

Very good post.

the DSM discussion could go on forever. It is interesting that we base things entirely on self report without wondering how mind processes questions of symptoms.

btw, "projective" is now replaced by "performance-based". The Ror is a perceptual task where the client demonstrates their cognitions through percepts.

 

[FadedC]

Here here!! The Rorschach is not a projective test in the Exner system. It is distressing to hear doctoral level students and psychologists who should know better referring to this as a "projective test."

Well I have read the argument that it should not be called a projective because that was not remotely Exner's intent when he created the scoring system. But even the rorshach division of the SPA does refer to it as a projective test as do at least a few of the major journal articles reviewing projectives that I have read. So in this case I was just using what appeared to be the most commonly used term for it among both it's supporters and it's detractors.

 

[Jegg]

They are still projective tests in the sense that the examinee is projecting meaning on ambiguous stimuli. Calling it a projective test vs. a performance-based test is simply focusing on different aspects of the event IMO. I can understand why Exner et al. would want to divorce themselves of a categorical label that seems to arouse a great deal of professional prejudice though...

 

[Jegg]

The DSM has its utility when it used scientifically instead of religiously. Likewise, it is crucial to understand it as a work in progress that reflects the larger part of our professional culture's current level of scientific understanding and conceptualization of mental illness. Does it have issues? Yes. However, I don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bath water. This is all IMO of course...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

btw, "projective" is now replaced by "performance-based". The Ror is a perceptual task where the client demonstrates their cognitions through percepts.

1. Can you speak to this more? That is sounding a lot like a visual-perception task (with more abstract stimuli).

2. Are there imbedded SVT measures?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

What are your thoughts on this?

Surveyed diplomates in forensic psychology "regarding both the frequency with which they use and their opinions about the acceptability of a variety of psychological tests in 6 areas of forensic practice. The 6 areas were mental state at the offense, risk for violence, risk for sexual violence, competency to stand trial, competency to waive Miranda rights, and malingering." In regard to the forensic assessment of malingering, "the majority of the respondents rated as acceptable the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS), Test of Memory Malingering, Validity Indicator Profile, Rey Fifteen Item Visual Memory Test, MMPI-2, PAI, WAIS-III, and Halstead-Reitan. The SIRS and the MMPI-2 were recommended by the majority. The psychologists were divided between acceptable and unacceptable about using either version of the MCMI (II or III). They were also divided, although between acceptable and no opinion, for the WASI, KBIT, Luria-Nebraska, and Stanford-Binet-Revised. The diplomates viewed as unacceptable for evaluating malingering the Rorschach, 16PF, projective drawings, sentence completion, and TAT. The majority gave no opinion on the acceptability of the Malingering Probability Scale, M-Test, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, and Portland Digit Recognition Test."

Source: "What Tests Are Acceptable for Use in Forensic Evaluations? A Survey of Experts" by Stephen Lally. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, October, 2003, vol. 34, #5, pages 491-498.

The surveyed group are are board-certified forensic experts, which are arguably the best of the best in their speciality.

 

[psychgeek]

FWIW, my emotional-personality assessment professor said that she believes projectives can be good in building rapport but not that useful in actual diagnosis, especially when your assessment could be taken to court (as is the case in schools).

This may not be absurd, but it is wrong (or at the very least, misleading).

There are a ton of people who do not actually do forensic work yet seem to consider themselves qualified to comment upon it. The fact is that the Rorschach is the second most frequently used personality test in expert testimony. It is almost always a part of death penalty mitigation work, it is more often than not included in civil commitment hearings, and it often is used in family court when there is a question of the degree of functional impairment associated with serious mental illness.

It isn't used in IDEA evaluations because it doesn't tell you anything about LD/ADHD - not because it isn't useful in general. I've never gotten a testing where the referral question seeks clarification of LD symptoms and putative psychotic symptoms, and I doubt anyone else has either.

Also, this comment makes me wonder if your prof really has experience with school testing reports/IEP appeals since these do not end up in court. The highest level of appeal for an IEP is a due process hearing in front of a federal magistrate. That decision can be appealed to the federal circuit court of appeals (I think), but this never happens since the only grounds for appeal of the magistrate's decision are errors of law. A federal magistrate certainly would consider evidence from the Rorschach if it were relevant since the rules of evidence require the magistrate to do so.

 

[Jegg]

What are your thoughts on this?



The surveyed group are are board-certified forensic experts, which are arguably the best of the best in their speciality.

I actually read this paper when writing a report about malingering awhile back.

It may be more useful to show the actual numbers Lally found with his survey from which he derived those statements. IIRC the Rorschach received a little over 50% rating of unacceptable for most of the uses queried (though it was much higher for malingering than for the other uses queried...). Sadly, Lally only reports where the highest rating falls, so we are left wondering if the other 40%+ think the Rorschach is useful, have no opinion, or a combination of both. The results of Lally's survey are also opinion based and could potentially be an artifact of current biases and controversies in the field against the Rorschach, i.e. they do not necessarily constitute empirical evidence. The responses are also representative of the people who would feel compelled to respond to his survey.

 

[FadedC]

Also, this comment makes me wonder if your prof really has experience with school testing reports/IEP appeals since these do not end up in court. The highest level of appeal for an IEP is a due process hearing in front of a federal magistrate. That decision can be appealed to the federal circuit court of appeals (I think), but this never happens since the only grounds for appeal of the magistrate's decision are errors of law. A federal magistrate certainly would consider evidence from the Rorschach if it were relevant since the rules of evidence require the magistrate to do so.

Well I'm not fully aware of the details, but I definitely know of school psychologists who have been called to testify in court. It's generally a very lawsuit prone field. Keep in mind that school based testing is not purely focused on IEPs. In fact some schools do not even allow school psychologists to participate in the IEP procces at all.

I have no idea how a rorshach would be interpreted by a jury, although it's been my observation that anything a jury doesn't understand can be manipulated by lawyers, one way or another. In school psychology however the first step before anyone decides if they are going to sue or not is often to explain your findings to the parents and to justify why you reached the conclusions that you did. My experience has been that parents often respond poorly when you use projective (or whatever else you want to call them) tests to argue that there is something wrong with their child.

 

[futureapppsy2]

It isn't used in IDEA evaluations because it doesn't tell you anything about LD/ADHD - not because it isn't useful in general. I've never gotten a testing where the referral question seeks clarification of LD symptoms and putative psychotic symptoms, and I doubt anyone else has either.

Also, this comment makes me wonder if your prof really has experience with school testing reports/IEP appeals since these do not end up in court. The highest level of appeal for an IEP is a due process hearing in front of a federal magistrate. That decision can be appealed to the federal circuit court of appeals (I think), but this never happens since the only grounds for appeal of the magistrate's decision are errors of law. A federal magistrate certainly would consider evidence from the Rorschach if it were relevant since the rules of evidence require the magistrate to do so.

You do realize that LD/ADHD assessments are hardily the only things a school psychologist does, right? Emotional-behavioral disorder assessment is a significant part of many (most?) school psychologists' jobs and one of the most likely to end up in court (and yes, questions of the appropriateness of an evaluation for ED/BD, LD, etc., do go to court and more than once in blue moon too) due to the subjectivity of the guidelines.

 

[aequitasveritas]

What are your thoughts on this?



The surveyed group are are board-certified forensic experts, which are arguably the best of the best in their speciality.

If the criterion is malingering then I agree. The Ror has scales like Complexity (basically how much someone puts into the task) which measure task engagement, but it doesn't really measure impression management.

Malingering as a construct rests in the method of self-report assessment.
That's precisely how we determine malingering...what someone states as their distress. To say that performance-based and projectives are not standards of assessing malingering is not a case in point for the forensic or general use of the measures.

 

[aequitasveritas]

1. Can you speak to this more? That is sounding a lot like a visual-perception task (with more abstract stimuli).

2. Are there imbedded SVT measures?

I think there is some confusion about the Rorschach vs systems of coding it.

The Rorschach itself is 10 cards with inkblots on them that pull for certain visual perceptions. The blots themselves require someone to orient to an ambiguous stimulus and produce (and yes, project) what it is. Most people have a rudimentary understanding of the task in this way. In fact, this is incorporated into the CS and the R-PAS as Popular Responses where someone either does or does not produce the common percepts, which has implications for their perceptual accuracy of the world.

When we expand the task beyond simply what the blots are (a projective issue) to how someone's mind/brain perceives the blot it becomes a task where they perform/demonstrate their cognition and perceptual experiences.
For example, when someone perceives a blot as a certain thing/person/whatever they have produced the Content, which is consistent with the old method of projective assessment...the what. The CS and R-PAS take it beyond to how...what specifically about the blot makes it look that way? Then you get to see whether they report certain features of the blot. When you aggregate these responses the patterns produce evidence of how someone perceptually experiences the world. Certain responses warrant cognitive special scores etc.
Moreover, to debate the validity of "The Rorschach" is silly. The accurate debate is over a scoring system, the CS or R-PAS, and then which scale specifically? There are many.

There are some improvement in the RPAS over the CS.
1. they threw out scales that had subpar validity and reliability. For ex, X-Ray...gone.
2. They included thematic scales like the Mutuality of Autonomy and the Oral Dependency Scale, which have substantial validity/rel. but that Exner didnt use.
3. Its all international norms-thousands of samples...not just Exners 600
4. R-PAS PRODUCES STANDARD SCORES and plots! VOILA...JUST LIKE AN MMPI.
5. It spits out a report based on only the most valid and reliable scales.

 

[erg923]

If the criterion is malingering then I agree. The Ror has scales like Complexity (basically how much someone puts into the task) which measure task engagement, but it doesn't really measure impression management.

Malingering as a construct rests in the method of self-report assessment.
That's precisely how we determine malingering...what someone states as their distress. To say that performance-based and projectives are not standards of assessing malingering is not a case in point for the forensic or general use of the measures.

Where is the ror actually used these days? Im not saying to be inflammatory, I'm saying because I really don't know. I went to school in a fairly dynamically friendly area of the country and still NEVER saw it used. I know it's more prominent in the northeast and such, but in what settings is its used? I've been in college counseling centers, npsych (va and hospital based) and primary care/b-med...and nobody uses it. Moreover, I dont know how they would have time for such a thing, in the primary care setting especially. Is it more of a PP thing then? It seems to me that the only person interested in reading such a report (and putting any stock in it) would be other clinical psychologists. And frankly, I usually write my notes so they are palatable to most medical and allied healthcare providers, or simply just myself (therapy progress notes).

 

[aequitasveritas]

Where is the ror actually used these days? Im not saying to be inflammatory, I’m saying because I really don’t know. I went to school in a fairly dynamically friendly area of the country and still NEVER saw it used. I know it’s more prominent in the northeast and such, but in what settings is its used? I've been in college counseling centers, npsych (va and hospital based) and primary care/b-med...and nobody uses it. Moreover, I dont know how they would have time for such a thing, in the primary care setting especially. Is it more of a PP thing then? It seems to me that the only person interested in reading such a report (and putting any stock in it) would be other clinical psychologists. And frankly, I usually write my notes so they are palatable to most medical and allied healthcare providers, or simply just myself (therapy progress notes).

My position on the Ror depends on whether we're talking about the val/rel of a scoring system vs the practicality of it's use. I agree that it can be really cumbersome as a test, esp in time limited services

I'm in San Diego and it's used all over in hospitals, PP, and some training sites. Certainly not as much as the PAI or MMPI

In PP, I get frustrated with how much damn work it takes, especially when we're getting paid less and less for our talent. I incorporate the results in palatable language as well, like you do, and that's the mark of a good assessor...not just regurgitation but putting it into language the average Joe can use.

I'd love to c more factor analytic studies and SEM that aims to discover whether or not the cards can be limited....what are the cards responsible for most of the Ror first factor? Then we can talk about using less cards. Idt this will ever happen though.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I am unfamiliar with R-PAS...how does it address the validity conerns that plagued prior scoring systems for the Rorschach? I am most interested in how it addresses: symptom validity, response bias, outright attempt to malinger, and dissimulation. These areas are all very important when selecting an assessment. I am genuinely interested to see if the R-PAS takes these factors into account, or if they are trying to "put lipstick on a pig".

I think there is some confusion about the Rorschach vs systems of coding it.

The Rorschach itself is 10 cards with inkblots...

I know what the Rorschach is, as I was begrudgingly forced to learn it in graduate school. My comment was about your description that it "performs/demonstrates their cognition and perceptual experiences", which just seems like a creative way of distancing the assessment from it's original purpose as a projective measure.

What kind of sample sizes were used for the R-PAS norms? The reason I ask is that one of the biggest critiques of the older 'supportive' literature for the Rorschach used very small sample sizes. Some of the studies had 10 (or less!) participants!

 

[aequitasveritas]

I am unfamiliar with R-PAS...how does it address the validity conerns that plagued prior scoring systems for the Rorschach? I am most interested in how it addresses: symptom validity, response bias, outright attempt to malinger, and dissimulation. These areas are all very important when selecting an assessment. I am genuinely interested to see if the R-PAS takes these factors into account, or if they are trying to "put lipstick on a pig".





I know what the Rorschach is, as I was begrudgingly forced to learn it in graduate school. My comment was about your description that it "performs/demonstrates their cognition and perceptual experiences", which just seems like a creative way of distancing the assessment from it's original purpose as a projective measure.

What kind of sample sizes were used for the R-PAS norms? The reason I ask is that one of the biggest critiques of the older 'supportive' literature for the Rorschach used very small sample sizes. Some of the studies had 10 (or less!) participants!

PPT that may answer some Qs. Right off the bat I can answer the Sx valifity question. The R-PAS variables are associated much higher with externally observed symptoms than self assessments. Ur other q about malingering is partially answered in my post above. There's more, most likely in research from Viglione, Meyer, and also R. Meloy.

http://www.r-pas.org/Docs/Meyer_Viglione_(2011)_New_Developments.pdf

Sample sizes have been large. In the R-PAS meta analyis they had N = 20,000
IN the International Norms they have N = 1395 for almost each variable

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

PPT that may answer some Qs. Right off the bat I can answer the Sx valifity question. The R-PAS variables are associated much higher with externally observed symptoms than self assessments. Ur other q about malingering is partially answered in my post above. There's more, most likely in research from Viglione, Meyer, and also R. Meloy.

http://www.r-pas.org/Docs/Meyer_Viglione_(2011)_New_Developments.pdf

Sample sizes have been large. In the R-PAS meta analyis they had N = 20,000
IN the International Norms they have N = 1395 for almost each variable

Thanks. I'll check this out over the weekend. Did they examine special populations like TBI, dementia, substance abuse, stroke, etc? I'm curious because there is a much higher incidence rate of these types of population being involved in legal cases.