rorschach vs. mmpi?

[tomato123]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hello,

I'm trying to decide whether to use the last remainder of my elective units to take either a class on the Rorschach or the MMPI. I'm wondering if it will make any difference with what I choose in terms of having better chances of getting placed for internships/jobs in the near future? Rorschach seems like it is more "fun" to learn to administer, but I'm thinking that having some background in MMPI might look better on my vita moreso than the Rorschach... any feedback would be appreciated... thanks!

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Well the first question you should ask yourself is what your learning needs are. How comfortable are you with the Rorschach? Are you proficient in the Exner system at this point?? If you are concerned about what will look good ofr internship, I have heard that different regions of the country vary interm of how popular some tests are. I hear the northeast is a place that is very friendly to psycho dynamic work and assessment with the Rorschach. The deep south where I live is more MMPI friendly and more CBT oriented. One issue with the MMPI is Pearson's financial extortion of users. Many sites are moving towards the use of the PAI and away from the MMPI to avoid the per use cost Pearson charges. Both are excellent tools. The PAI has alot of psychometric strengths and practical issues in its favor. Also, think about your theoretical orientation and what fits best with your approach. If you are a member of the cognitive behavioral school, what will training in the Rorschach get you??

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

MMPI-2....unless you plan on applying to places that are very psychodynamic friendly. Do you have any MMPI-2 experience? If not, DEFINITELY take the MMPI-2 class.

 

[tomato123]

i am leaning toward the psychodynamic school (toward object relations). but more than anything, i am very, very much interested in assessment as a big part of my psychological career. i wish i could take both classes, but my class scheduling situation at the moment only allows me to take one. 🙁

so the sense i get is that the Rorschach is used for settings where there is a "heavy" psychodynamic orientation, and the MMPI, while being CBT-oriented, is more widely used in general settings where assessment is involved?

 

[psybee]

i am leaning toward the psychodynamic school (toward object relations). but more than anything, i am very, very much interested in assessment as a big part of my psychological career. i wish i could take both classes, but my class scheduling situation at the moment only allows me to take one. 🙁

so the sense i get is that the Rorschach is used for settings where there is a "heavy" psychodynamic orientation, and the MMPI, while being CBT-oriented, is more widely used in general settings where assessment is involved?

and there may indeed be setting where you'd use both. i could be wrong, but from my modest training i'd say it would be much much much harder to learn exner on your own on on internship, but less so w/ the mmpi

 

[Neuropsych2be]

If you have a psychodynamic orientation, then the Rorschach would be more in line with your thinking and interests. Psychologists should be trained in both objective and projective tests whatever the theoretical orientation they espouse. Also the Rorschach itself can be conceptualized as a cognitive and perceptual task involving ambiguous stimuli rather than a projective test per se. Getting a sample of client behavior when attempting to process these stimuli can be useful. It may have some weakness as a psychometric instrument and I'd be reluctant to use it in a court case. However, after administering a Rorschach you can derive a wealth of inferences and hypotheses that you can explore in other aspects of the evaluative process. The administration and scoring of the Rorschach is very complex and you really won't have time to learn it on internship. The MMPI-2 is more straightforward though the new revised scales are something I have not been trained on yet.

 

[tomato123]

thank you for all your quick and awesome responses! 🙂

 

[KillerDiller]

and there may indeed be setting where you'd use both. i could be wrong, but from my modest training i'd say it would be much much much harder to learn exner on your own on on internship, but less so w/ the mmpi

Yeah, this was my initial thought as well. I'm not sure what you would learn in a class on the MMPI that you couldn't learn from reading the essentials book. Sure, the MMPI requires interpretation, but it's not something that needs to be taught in person. The Rorschach, on the other hand, is much more complex. I would ask if you will be taught the Exner system in that class. If not, then you're getting into territory where use of the Rorschach isn't scientifically supported. I know Exner's norms are flawed, but at least there are norms.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Exner is DEFINITELY harder to learn. My comments were about having exposure to it, as you'll probably be asked on internship your assessment experience, and it seems that most everyone had at least some exposure to the MMPI-2. It isn't really that hard to learn, but the class was helpful to go over everything in more depth than is listed in "The Essentials...." MMPI-2 book.

 

[wrsparks]

I'm in my Personality Testing class right now. We are learning about the MCMI, MMPI, NEO PI, etc. For you ( even though it kills me a little to say it 🙂 ), I would say the Rorschach. The MMPI II has competition that has emerged (MMPI II RF) with alleged better psychometric properties, that's shorter, and possibly more useful scales. However, the research on the RF and it's comparison is basically non-existent right now. The RF is pretty new. Also, if the DSM V changes dramatically, who knows how we will test for personality disorders etc. While this is all really helpful for me as someone who is more CBT focused, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be more efficient for you (as someone who is more PD) to learn something you would definitely use a lot right now, and then wait for the rest to get sorted out and learn what ends up being more useful 🙂

 

[erg923]

The MMPI II has competition that has emerged (MMPI II RF) with alleged better psychometric properties, that's shorter, and possibly more useful scales.

These are not really competing against one another. One can use RC scale interperetation with the 567 item MMPI and along with code type interpretation.

 

[wrsparks]

Really? I'm confused. Are you saying that you can use the MMPI and the RF and look at both for each client when evaluating? Because we also look at both at the same time. If you're saying that the MMPI II has RC scales for the full version, I had no idea about this.

 

[erg923]

If you're saying that the MMPI II has RC scales for the full version, I had no idea about this.

Im saying the 10 RC scales can be derived from the 567 version. None of the actual items changed with RF remember...there are just alot less of them. I routinely look at the RC scales prient out in addition to traditional (old) clinical scales codetype when i give the 567 version. Pearson's print out gives both using the 567 version.

 

[LM02]

so the sense i get is that the Rorschach is used for settings where there is a "heavy" psychodynamic orientation, and the MMPI, while being CBT-oriented, is more widely used in general settings where assessment is involved?

Just to clarify, the MMPI is not "CBT-oriented." Rather, the MMPI is empirically derived. Hence, CBT-oriented people will tend to prefer the MMPI because of its empirical roots. My vote is for MMPI, no doubt.

 

[wrsparks]

Im saying the 10 RC scales can be derived from the 567 version. None of the actual items changed with RF remember...there are just alot less of them. I routinely look at the RC scales prient out in addition to traditional (old) clinical scales codetype when i give the 567 version. Pearson's print out gives both using the 567 version.

Gotcha. I'm totally with you. Sometimes it's hard to understand exactly what people are trying to say on these forums.
From previously, I guess what I meant by "compete" was that some people really like the 2pt codes of the MMPI etc. so they like this better and some people like the RC scales and indexes etc so they like the RF better. So, they compete in the sense that it doesn't make sense to continue to use both since they are attempting to measure the same thing and made of the same questions. Of course, this "competition" is more of an opinion of mine.

 

[erg923]

So, they compete in the sense that it doesn't make sense to continue to use both since they are attempting to measure the same thing and made of the same questions. Of course, this "competition" is more of an opinion of mine.

Well..no...they aren't measuring the same things. Thats the whole point of why the RF was developed, to parse out item overalp variance and produce a more "pure" profile by statistically seperating the "demoralization" factor. The beauty is that by pulling out variance (items that count toward multiple scales) that artifically inflates the traditional clinical scales , the 2 versions really are tapping into to different things. I think it makes perfect since to look at both.