Rorschach score validation as a model for 21st-century personality assessment

39Citations
Citations of this article
65Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

Recent conceptual and methodological innovations have led to new strategies for documenting the construct validity of test scores, including performance-based test scores. These strategies have the potential to generate more definitive evidence regarding the validity of scores derived from the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) and help resolve some long-standing controversies regarding the clinical utility of the Rorschach. After discussing the unique challenges in studying the Rorschach and why research in this area is important given current trends in scientific and applied psychology, I offer 3 overarching principles to maximize the construct validity of RIM scores, arguing that (a) the method that provides RIM validation measures plays a key role in generating outcome predictions; (b) RIM variables should be linked with findings from neighboring subfields; and (c) rigorous RIM score validation includes both process-focused and outcome-focused assessments. I describe a 4-step strategy for optimal RIM score derivation (formulating hypotheses, delineating process links, generating outcome predictions, and establishing limiting conditions); and a 4-component template for RIM score validation (establishing basic psychometrics, documenting outcome-focused validity, assessing process-focused validity, and integrating outcome- and process-focused validity data). The proposed framework not only has the potential to enhance the validity and utility of the RIM, but might ultimately enable the RIM to become a model of test score validation for 21st-century personality assessment. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bornstein, R. F. (2012). Rorschach score validation as a model for 21st-century personality assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.627961

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free