Projective Test

Projective test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An inkblot from the Rorschach inkblot test, the most well-known and widely used of the projective tests
In psychology, a projective test is a personality test designed to let a person respond to ambiguous stimuli, presumably revealing hidden emotions and internal conflicts. This is different from an "objective test" in which responses are analyzed according to a universal standard (for example, a multiple choice exam). The responses to projective tests are content analyzed for meaning rather than being based on presuppositions about meaning, as is the case with objective tests. Projective tests in general rely heavily on clinical judgement, lack reliability andvalidity and many have no standardized criteria to which results may be compared. These tests are still used frequently, however, despite the lack of scientific evidenceto support them and their continued popularity has been referred to as the "projective paradox".[1] Projective tests have their origins in psychoanalytic psychology, which argues that humans have conscious and unconscious attitudes and motivations that are beyond or hidden from conscious awareness. The terms "objective test" and "projective test" have recently come under criticism in the Journal of Personality Assessment. The more descriptive "rating scale or self-report measures" and "free response measures" are suggested, rather than the terms "objective tests" and "projective tests," respectively.[2]
Contents
[hide]
o o
1 Theory 2 Common variants 2.1 Rorschach 2.2 Thematic apperception test
o o
2.3 Draw-A-Person test 2.4 Sentence completion test 3 Uses in marketing 4 See also 5 References 6 Footnotes
[edit]Theory The general theoretical position behind projective tests is that whenever a specific question is asked, the response will be consciously-formulated and socially determined. These responses do not reflect the respondent's unconscious or implicit attitudes or motivations. The respondent's deep-seated motivations may not be consciously recognized by the respondent or the respondent may not be able to verbally express them in the form demanded by the questioner. Advocates of projective tests stress that the ambiguity of the stimuli presented within the tests allow subjects to express thoughts that originate on a deeper level than tapped by explicit questions. Projective tests lost some of their popularity during the 1980s and 1990s in part because of the overall loss of popularity of the psychoanalytic method and theories. Despite this, they are still used quite frequently. [edit]Common
variants
[edit]Rorschach Main article: Rorschach inkblot test The best known and most frequently used projective test is the Rorschach inkblot test, in which a subject is shown a series of ten irregular but symmetrical inkblots, and asked to explain what they see.[1] The subject's responses are then analyzed in various ways, noting not only what was said, but the time taken to respond, which aspect of the drawing was focused on, and how single responses compared to other responses for the same drawing. For example, if someone consistently sees the images as threatening and frightening, the tester might infer that the subject may suffer from paranoia.
Rorschach test
(Redirected from Rorschach inkblot test)
"Rorschach Test" redirects here. For the band, see Rorschach Test (band).
The first of the ten cards in the Rorschach test, with the occurrence of the most statistically frequent details indicated.[1][2] The images themselves are only one component of the test, whose focus is the analysis of the perception of the images.
29%
18%
6%
The Rorschach test (German pronunciation: [oax]; also known as the Rorschach inkblot test or simply the Inkblot test) is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex scientifically derived algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine a person's personality characteristics and emotional functioning. It has been employed to detect an underlying thought disorder, especially in cases where patients are reluctant to describe their thinking processes openly.[3] The test takes its name from that of its creator, Swiss psychologist Hermann Rorschach. In a national survey in the U.S., the Rorschach was ranked eighth among psychological tests used in outpatient mental health facilities.[4] It is the second most widely used test by members of the Society for Personality Assessment, and it is requested by psychiatrists in 25% of forensic assessmentcases,[4] usually in a battery of tests that often include the MMPI-2 and the MCMI-III.
[5]
In surveys, the use of Rorschach ranges from a low of 20% by correctional psychologists[6] to a
high of 80% by clinical psychologists engaged in assessment services, and 80% of psychology graduate programs surveyed teach it.[7] Although the Exner Scoring System (developed since the 1960s) claims to have addressed and often refuted many criticisms of the original testing system with an extensive body of research,
[8]
some researchers have raised questions about the objectivity of psychologists administrating
the test; inter-rater reliability; the verifiability and general validity of the test; bias of the test's pathology scales towards greater numbers of responses; the limited number of psychological conditions which it accurately diagnoses; the inability to replicate the test's norms; its use in court-ordered evaluations; and the proliferation of the ten inkblot images, potentially invalidating the test for those who have been exposed to them.[9]
Contents
[hide]
1 History 2 Method 2.1 Features or categories
o o o o o o o o o o o
2.1.1 Content 2.1.2 Location 2.1.3 Determinants 2.2 Exner scoring system 2.3 Cultural differences 2.4 Neurology
3 The ten inkblots 4 Prevalence 4.1 United States 5 Controversy 5.1 Test materials 5.2 Tester projection 5.3 Validity 5.4 Reliability 5.5 Population norms 5.6 Applications 5.7 Protection of test items and ethics 6 See also 7 Notes 8 References 9 External links
History
Hermann Rorschach created the Rorschach inkblot test in 1921.
Using interpretation of "ambiguous designs" to assess an individual's personality is an idea that goes back to Leonardo da Vinci and Botticelli. Interpretation of inkblots was central to a game from the late 19th century. Rorschach's, however, was the first systematic approach of this kind.
[10]
It has been suggested that Rorschach's use of inkblots may have been inspired by German doctorJustinus Kerner who, in 1857, had published a popular book of poems, each of which was inspired by an accidental inkblot.[11] French psychologist Alfred Binet had also experimented with inkblots as a creativity test,[12] and, after the turn of the century, psychological experiments where inkblots were utilized multiplied, with aims such as studying imagination and consciousness.[13] After studying 300 mental patients and 100 control subjects, in 1921 Rorschach wrote his bookPsychodiagnostik, which was to form the basis of the inkblot test (after experimenting with several hundred inkblots, he selected a set of ten for their diagnostic value),[14] but he died the following year. Although he had served as Vice President of the Swiss Psychoanalytic Society, Rorschach had difficulty in publishing the book and it attracted little attention when it first appeared.[15] In 1927, the newly-founded Hans Huber publishing house purchased Rorschach's book Psychodiagnostikfrom the inventory of Ernst Bircher.[16] Huber has remained the publisher of the test and related book, with Rorschach a registered trademark of Swiss publisher Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG.[17] The work has been described as "a densely written piece couched in dry, scientific terminology".[18] After Rorschach's death, the original test scoring system was improved by Samuel Beck, Bruno Klopfer and others.[19] John E. Exnersummarized some of these later developments in
the comprehensive system, at the same time trying to make the scoring more statistically rigorous. Some systems are based on the psychoanalytic concept of object relations. The Exner system remains very popular in the United States, while in Europe other methods sometimes dominate,[20][21] such as that described in the textbook by Evald Bohm, which is closer to the original Rorschach system and rooted more deeply in the original psychoanalysis principles.[citation
needed]
Method
The tester and subject typically sit next to each other at a table, with the tester slightly behind the subject.[22] This is to facilitate a "relaxed but controlled atmosphere". There are ten official inkblots, each printed on a separate white card, approximately 18x24 cm in size.[23] Each of the blots has near perfect bilateral symmetry. Five inkblots are of black ink, two are of black and red ink and three are multicolored, on a white background.[24][25][26] After the test subject has seen and responded to all of the inkblots (free association phase), the tester then presents them again one at a time in a set sequence for the subject to study: the subject is asked to note where he sees what he originally saw and what makes it look like that (inquiry phase). The subject is usually asked to hold the cards and may rotate them. Whether the cards are rotated, and other related factors such as whether permission to rotate them is asked, may expose personality traits and normally contributes to the assessment.[27] As the subject is examining the inkblots, the psychologist writes down everything the subject says or does, no matter how trivial. Analysis of responses is recorded by the test administrator using a tabulation and scoring sheet and, if required, a separate location chart.[22] The general goal of the test is to provide data about cognition and personality variables such as motivations, response tendencies, cognitive operations, affectivity, and personal/interpersonal perceptions. The underlying assumption is that an individual will class external stimuli based on person-specific perceptual sets, and including needs, base motives, conflicts, and that this clustering process is representative of the process used in real-life situations.[28] Methods of interpretation differ. Rorschach scoring systems have been described as a system of pegs on which to hang one's knowledge of personality.[29] The most widely used method in the United States is based on the work of Exner. Administration of the test to a group of subjects, by means of projected images, has also occasionally been performed, but mainly for research rather than diagnostic purposes.[22] Test administration is not to be confused with test interpretation:
"The interpretation of a Rorschach record is a complex process. It requires a wealth of knowledge concerning personality dynamics generally as well as considerable experience with the Rorschach method
specifically. Proficiency as a Rorschach administrator can be gained within a few months. However, even those who are able and qualified to become Rorschach interpreters usually remain in a "learning stage" for a number of years."[22]
Features or categories
The interpretation of the Rorschach test is not based primarily on the contents of the response, i.e., what the individual sees in the inkblot (the content). In fact, the contents of the response are only a comparatively small portion of a broader cluster of variables that are used to interpret the Rorschach data: for instance, information is provided by the time taken before providing a response for a card can be significant (taking a long time can indicate "shock" on the card).[30] as well as by any comments the subject may make in addition to providing a direct response.[31] In particular, information about determinants (the aspects of the inkblots that triggered the response, such as form and color) and location(which details of the inkblots triggered the response) is often considered more important than content, although there is contrasting evidence.[32][33] "Popularity" and "originality" of responses [34] can also be considered as basic dimensions in the analysis.[35]
Content
This section requires expansion.
Content is classified in terms of "human", "nature", "animal", "abstract", etc., as well as for statistical popularity (or, conversely, originality).[36] More than any other feature in the test, content response can be controlled consciously by the subject, and may be elicited by very disparate factors, which makes it difficult to use content alone to draw any conclusions about the subject's personality; with certain individuals, content responses may potentially be interpreted directly, and some information can at times be obtained by analyzing thematic trends in the whole set of content responses (which is only feasible when several responses are available), but in general content cannot be analyzed outside of the context of the entire test record.[37]
Location
This section requires expansion.
The basis for the response is usually the whole inkblot, a detail (either a commonly or an uncommonly selected one), or the negative spacearound or within the inkblot.[23]
Determinants
Systems for Rorschach scoring generally include a concept of "determinants": these are the factors that contribute to establish the similarity between the inkblot and the subject's content response about it, and they can represent certain basic experiential-perceptual attitudes, showing aspects of the way a subject perceives the world. Rorschach's original work used only form, color and movement; currently, another major determinant considered is shading,
[38]
which was inadvertently introduced by poor printing of the inkblots (which originally featured
uniform saturation), and subsequently recognized as significant by Rorschach himself.[39][40][41] Form is the most common determinant, and is related to intellectual processes; color responses often provide direct insight into emotional life. Shading and movement have been considered more ambiguously, both in definition and interpretation: Rorschach originally disregarded shading (which was originally not even present on the cards, being a result of the print process),[42] and he considered movement as only actual experiencing of motion, while others have widened the scope of this determinant, taking it to mean that the subject sees something "going on".[43] More than one determinant can contribute to the formation of the subject's percept, and fusion of two determinants is taken into account, while also assessing which of the two constituted the primary contributor (e.g. "form-color" implies a more refined control of impulse than "color-form"). It is, indeed, from the relation and balance among determinants that personality can be most readily inferred.[43]
Exner scoring system

The Exner scoring system, also known as the Rorschach Comprehensive System (RCS),[44] is the standard method for interpreting the Rorschach test. It was developed in the 1960s by Dr. John E. Exner, as a more rigorous system of analysis. It has been extensively validated and shows high inter-rater reliability.[8][45] In 1969, Exner published The Rorschach Systems, a concise description of what would be later called "the Exner system". He later published a study in multiple volumes called The Rorschach: A Comprehensive system, the most accepted full description of his system. Creation of the new system was prompted by the realization that at least five related, but ultimately different methods were in common use at the time, with a sizeable minority of examiners not employing any recognized method at all, basing instead their judgment on subjective assessment, or arbitrarily mixing characteristics of the various standardized systems.[46] The key components of the Exner system are the clusterization of Rorschach variables and a sequential search strategy to determine the order in which to analyze them,[47] framed in the context of standardized administration, objective, reliable coding and a representative normative
database.[48] The system places a lot of emphasis on a cognitive triad of information processing, related to how the subject processes input data, cognitive mediation, referring to the way information is transformed and identified, and ideation.[49] In the system, responses are scored with reference to their level of vagueness or synthesis of multiple images in the blot, the location of the response, which of a variety of determinants is used to produce the response (i.e., what makes the inkblot look like what it is said to resemble), the form quality of the response (to what extent a response is faithful to how the actual inkblot looks), the contents of the response (what the respondent actually sees in the blot), the degree of mental organizing activity that is involved in producing the response, and any illogical, incongruous, or incoherent aspects of responses. It has been reported that popular responses on the first card include bat, badge and coat of arms.[29] Using the scores for these categories, the examiner then performs a series of calculations producing a structural summary of the test data. The results of the structural summary are interpreted using existing research data on personality characteristics that have been demonstrated to be associated with different kinds of responses. With the Rorschach plates (the ten inkblots), the area of each blot which is distinguished by the client is noted and coded typically as "commonly selected" or "uncommonly selected". There were many different methods for coding the areas of the blots. Exner settled upon the area coding system promoted by S. J. Beck (1944 and 1961). This system was in turn based upon Klopfer's (1942) work. As pertains to response form, a concept of "form quality" was present from the earliest of Rorschach's works, as a subjective judgment of how well the form of the subject's response matched the inkblots (Rorschach would give a higher form score to more "original" yet good form responses), and this concept was followed by other methods, especially in Europe; in contrast, the Exner system solely defines "good form" as a matter of word occurrence frequency, reducing it to a measure of the subject's distance to the population average.[50]
Cultural differences
Comparing North American Exner normative data with data from European and South American subjects showed marked differences in some features, some of which impact important variables, while others (such as the average number of responses) coincide.[51] For instance, texture response is typically zero in European subjects (if interpreted as a need for closeness, in accordance with the system, European would seem to express it only when it reaches the level of a craving for closeness),[52] and there are fewer "good form" responses, to the point where schizophrenia may be suspected if data were correlated to the North American norms.[53] Form is
also often the only determinant expressed by European subjects;[54] while color is less frequent than in American subjects, color-form responses are comparatively frequent in opposition to formcolor responses; since the latter tend to be interpreted as indicators of a defensive attitude in processing affect, this difference could stem from a higher value attributed to spontaneous expression of emotions.[52] The differences in form quality are attributable to purely cultural aspects: different cultures will exhibit different "common" objects (French subjects often identify a chameleon in card VIII, which is normally classed as an "unusual" response, as opposed to other animals like cats and dogs; in Scandinavia, "Christmas elves" (nisser) is a popular response for card II, and "musical instrument" on card VI is popular for Japanese people),[55] and different languages will exhibit semantic differences in naming the same object (the figure of card IV is often called a troll by Scandinavians and an ogre by French people).[56] Many of Exner's "popular" responses (those given by at least one third of the North American sample used) seem to be universally popular, as shown by samples in Europe, Japan and South America, while specifically card IX's "human" response, the crab or spider in card X and one of either the butterfly or the bat in card I appear to be characteristic of North America.[56][57] Form quality, popular content responses and locations are the only coded variables in the Exner systems that are based on frequency of occurrence, and thus immediately subject to cultural influences; therefore, cultural-dependent interpretation of test data may not necessarily need to extend beyond these components.[58] The cited language differences mean that it's imperative for the test to be administered in the subject's native language or a very well mastered second language, and, conversely, the examiner should master the language used in the test. Test responses should also not be translated into another language prior to analysis except possibly by a clinician mastering both languages. For example, a bow tie is a frequent response for the center detail of card III, but since the equivalent term in French translates to "butterfly tie", an examiner not appreciating this language nuance may code the response differently from what is expected.[59]
Neurology
Research using figure 03 have found that unique responses are produced in people with larger amygdalas. The researchers note, "Since previous reports have indicated that unique responses were observed at higher frequency in the artistic population than in the nonartistic normal population, this positive correlation suggests that amygdalar enlargement in the normal population might be related to creative mental activity."[60]
The ten inkblots
Below are the ten inkblots of the Rorschach test printed in Rorschach's Rorschach Test Psychodiagnostic Plates,[61] together with the most frequent responses for either the whole image or the most prominent details according to various authors. They have been in the public domain in Hermann Rorschach's native Switzerland since at least 1992 (70 years after the author's death, or 50 years after the cut-off date of 1942), according to Swiss copyright law.[62]
[63]
They are also in the public domain under United States copyright law:[64][65] all works published
before 1923 are considered to be in the public domain.[66] Card Popular responses[67][68][69] Beck: bat, butterfly, moth Piotrowski: bat (53%), butterfly(29%) Dana (France): butterfly (39%) Comments[70][71] When seeing card I, subjects often inquire on how they should proceed, and questions on what they are allowed to do with the card (e.g. turning it) are not very significant. Being the first card, it can provide clues about how subjects tackle a new and stressful task. It is not, however, a card that is usually difficult for the subject to handle, having readily available popular responses. The red details of card II are often seen as blood, and are the most distinctive features. Responses to them can provide indications about how a subject is likely to manage feelings of anger or physical harm. This card can
Beck: two humans Piotrowski: four-legged animal(34%, gray parts) Dana (France): animal: dog, elephant, bear (50%, gray)
Beck: two humans (gray) Piotrowski: human figures (72%, gray) Dana (France): human (76%, gray)
Beck: animal hide, skin, rug Piotrowski: animal skin, skin rug(41%) Dana (France): animal skin (46%)
induce a variety of sexual responses. Card III is typically perceived to contain two humans involved in some interaction, and may provide information about how the subject relates with other people (specifically, response latency may reveal struggling social interactions). Card IV is notable for its dark color and its shading (posing difficulties for depressed subjects), and is generally perceived as a big and sometimes threatening figure; compounded with the common impression of the subject being in an inferior position ("looking up") to it, this serves to elicit a sense of authority. The human or animal content seen in the card is almost invariably classified as male rather than female, and the qualities expressed by the subject may indicate attitudes toward men and
Beck: bat, butterfly, moth Piotrowski: butterfly (48%), bat(40%) Dana (France): butterfly (48%), bat(46%)
Beck: animal hide, skin, rug Piotrowski: animal skin, skin rug(41%) Dana (France): animal skin (46%)
Beck: human heads or faces(top) Piotrowski: heads of women or children (27%, top) Dana (France): human head (46%, top)
authority. Card V is an easily elaborated card that is not usually perceived as threatening, and typically instigates a "change of pace" in the test, after the previous more challenging cards. Containing few features that generate concerns or complicate the elaboration, it is the easiest blot to generate a good quality response about. Texture is the dominant characteristic of card VI, which often elicits association related to interpersonal closeness; it is specifically a "sex card", its likely sexual percepts being reported more frequently than in any other card, even though other cards have a greater variety of commonly seen sexual contents. Card VII can be associated with femininity (the human figures commonly seeing in it being described as women or
Beck: animal: not cat or dog(pink) Piotrowski: four-legged animal(94%, pink) Dana (France): four-legged animal(93%, pink)
children), and function as a "mother card", where difficulties in responding may be related to concerns with the female figures in the subject's life. The center detail is relatively often (though not popularly) identified as a vagina, which make this card also relate to feminine sexuality in particular. People often express relief about card VIII, which lets them relax and respond effectively. Similar to card V, it represents a "change of pace"; however, the card introduces new elaboration difficulties, being complex and the first multi-colored card in the set. Therefore, people who find processing complex situations or emotional stimuli distressing or difficult may be uncomfortable with this card.
Beck: human (orange) Piotrowski: none Dana (France): none
Beck: crab, lobster, spider(blue) crab, spider (37%, blue), Piotrowski: rabbit head (31%, light green), caterpillars, worms, snakes (28%, deep green) Dana (France): none
Characteristic of card IX is indistinct form and diffuse, muted chromatic features, creating a general vagueness. There is only one popular response, and it is the least frequent of all cards. Having difficulty with processing this card may indicate trouble dealing with unstructured data, but aside from this there are few particular "pulls" typical of this card. Card X is structurally similar to card VIII, but its uncertainty and complexity are reminiscent of card IX: people who find it difficult to deal with many concurrent stimuli may not particularly like this otherwise pleasant card. Being the last card, it may provide an opportunity for the subject to "sign out" by indicating what they feel their situation is like, or what they desire to know.
Prevalence
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.
United States
The Rorschach test is used almost exclusively by psychologists. In a survey done in the year 2000, 20% of correctional psychologists used the Rorschach while 80% used the MMPI.
[6]
Forensic psychologists use the Rorschach 36% of the time.[72] In custody cases, 23% of
psychologists use the Rorschach to examine a child.[73] Another survey found that 124 out of 161 (77%) of clinical psychologists engaging in assessment services utilize the Rorschach,[74] and 80% of psychology graduate programs teach its use.[7] Another study found that its use by clinical psychologists was only 43%, while it was used less than 24% of the time by school psychologists.
[72]
Controversy
Some skeptics consider the Rorschach inkblot test pseudoscience,[9][75] as several studies suggested that conclusions reached by test administrators since the 1950s were akin to cold reading.[76] In the 1959 edition of Mental Measurement Yearbook, Lee Cronbach (former President of the Psychometric Society and American Psychological Association)[77] is quoted in a review: "The test has repeatedly failed as a prediction of practical criteria. There is nothing in the literature to encourage reliance on Rorschach interpretations." In addition, major reviewer Raymond J. McCall writes (p. 154): "Though tens of thousands of Rorschach tests have been administered by hundreds of trained professionals since that time (of a previous review), and while many relationships to personality dynamics and behavior have been hypothesized, the vast majority of these relationships have never been validated empirically [sic], despite the appearance of more than 2,000 publications about the test."[78] A moratorium on its use was called for in 1999.[79] A 2003 report by Wood and colleagues had more mixed views: "More than 50 years of research have confirmed Lee J. Cronbachs (1970) final verdict: that some Rorschach scores, though falling woefully short of the claims made by proponents, nevertheless possess validity greater than chance (p. 636). [...] "Its value as a measure of thought disorder in schizophrenia research is well accepted. It is also used regularly in research on dependency, and, less often, in studies on hostility and anxiety. Furthermore, substantial evidence justifies the use of the Rorschach as a clinical measure of intelligence and thought disorder."[80]
Test materials
The basic premise of the test is that objective meaning can be extracted from responses to blots of ink which are supposedly meaningless. Supporters of the Rorschach inkblot test believe that
the subject's response to an ambiguous and meaningless stimulus can provide insight into their thought processes, but it is not clear how this occurs. Also, recent research shows that the blots are not entirely meaningless, and that a patient typically responds to meaningful as well as ambiguous aspects of the blots.[8] Reber (1985) describes the blots as merely ".. the vehicle for the interaction .." between client and therapist, concluding: ".. the usefulness of the Rorschach will depend upon the sensitivity, empathy and insightfulness of the tester totally independently of the Rorschach itself. An intense dialogue about the wallpaper or the rug would do as well provided that both parties believe."[81]
Tester projection
Some critics argue that the testing psychologist must also project onto the patterns. A possible example sometimes attributed to the psychologist's subjective judgement is that responses are coded (among many other things), for "Form Quality": in essence, whether the subject's response fits with how the blot actually looks. Superficially this might be considered a subjective judgment, depending on how the examiner has internalized the categories involved. But with the Exner system of scoring, much of the subjectivity is eliminated or reduced by use of frequency tables that indicate how often a particular response is given by the population in general.[8] Another example is that the response "bra" was considered a "sex" response by male psychologists, but a "clothing" response by females.[82] In Exner's system, however, such a response is always coded as "clothing" unless there is a clear sexual reference in the response.[8] Third parties could be used to avoid this problem, but the Rorschach's inter-rater reliability has been questioned. That is, in some studies the scores obtained by two independent scorers do not match with great consistency.[83] This conclusion was challenged in studies using large samples reported in 2002.[84]
Validity
When interpreted as a projective test, results are thus poorly verifiable. The Exner system of scoring (also known as the "Comprehensive System") is meant to address this, and has all but displaced many earlier (and less consistent) scoring systems. It makes heavy use of what factor (shading, color, outline, etc.) of the inkblot leads to each of the tested person's comments. Disagreements about test validity remain: while the Exner proposed a rigorous scoring system, latitude remained in the actual interpretation, and the clinician's write-up of the test record is still partly subjective.[85] Reber (1985) comments ".. there is essentially no evidence whatsoever that the test has even a shred of validity."[81] Nevertheless, there is substantial research indicating the utility of the measure for a few scores. Several scores correlate well with generalintelligence. Interestingly, one such scale is R, the total
number of responses; this reveals the questionable side-effect that more intelligent people tend to be elevated on many pathology scales, since many scales do not correct for high R: if a subject gives twice as many responses overall, it is more likely that some of these will seem "pathological". Also correlated with intelligence are the scales for Organizational Activity, Complexity, Form Quality, and Human Figure responses.[86] The same source reports that validity has also been shown for detecting such conditions as schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders; thought disorders; and personality disorders (includingborderline personality disorder). There is some evidence that the Deviant Verbalizations scale relates to bipolar disorder. The authors conclude that "Otherwise, the Comprehensive System doesn't appear to bear a consistent relationship to psychological disorders or symptoms, personality characteristics, potential for violence, or such health problems as cancer".[87] (Cancer is mentioned because a small minority of Rorschach enthusiasts have claimed the test can predict cancer.)[88]
Reliability
It is also thought that the test's reliability can depend substantially on details of the testing procedure, such as where the tester and subject are seated, any introductory words, verbal and nonverbal responses to subjects' questions or comments, and how responses are recorded. Exner has published detailed instructions, but Wood et al.[82] cites many court cases where these had not been followed. Similarly, the procedures for coding responses are fairly well specified but extremely time-consuming to inexperienced examiners, who may cut corners as a result. US Courts have challenged Rorschach as well. Jones v Apfel (1997) stated (quoting from Attorney's Textbook of Medicine) that Rorschash "results do not meet the requirements of standardization, reliability, or validity of clinical diagnostic tests, and interpretation thus is often controversial".[89] In State ex rel H.H. (1999) where under cross examination Dr. Bogacki stated under oath "many psychologists do not believe much in the validity or effectiveness of the Rorschach test"[90] and US v Battle (2001) ruled that the Rorschash "does not have an objective scoring system." [91]
Population norms
Another area of controversy are the test's statistical norms. Exner's system was thought to possess normative scores for various populations. But, beginning in the mid-1990s others began to try to replicate or update these norms and failed. In particular, discrepancies seemed to focus on indices measuring narcissism, disordered thinking, and discomfort in close relationships.
[92]
Lillenfeld and colleagues, who are critical of the Rorschach, have stated that this proves that
the Rorschach tends to "overpathologise normals".[92] Although Rorschach proponents, such as Hibbard,[93] suggest that high rates of pathology detected by the Rorshach accurately reflect
increasing psychopathology in society, the Rorschach also identifies half of all test-takers as possessing "distorted thinking",[94] a false positive rate unexplained by current research. The accusation of "over-pathologising" has also been considered by Meyer et al. (2007). They presented an international collaborative study of 4704 Rorschach protocols, obtained in 21 different samples, across 17 different countries, with only 2 % showing significant elevations on the index of perceptual and thinking disorder, 12 % elevated on indices of depression and hypervigilance and 13% elevated on persistent stress overloadall in line with expected frequencies among nonpatient populations.[95]
Applications
The test is also controversial because of its common use in court-ordered evaluations.[citation
needed]
This controversy stems, in part, from the limitations of the Rorschach, with no additional
data, in making official diagnoses from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV).[96] Irving B. Weiner (co-developer with John Exner of the Comprehensive system) has stated that the Rorschach "is a measure of personality functioning, and it provides information concerning aspects of personality structure and dynamics that make people the kind of people they are. Sometimes such information about personality characteristics is helpful in arriving at a differential diagnosis, if the alternative diagnoses being considered have been well conceptualized with respect to specific or defining personality characteristics".[97] In the vast majority of cases, anyway, the Rorschach test wasn't singled out but used as one of several in a battery of tests,[5] and despite the criticism of usage of the Rorschach in the courts, out of 8,000 cases in which forensic psychologists used Rorschach-based testimony, the appropriateness of the instrument was challenged only six times, and the testimony was ruled inadmissible in only one of those cases.[7]One study has found that use of the test in courts has increased by three times in the decade between 1996 and 2005, compared to the previous fifty years.[5] Others however have found that its usage by forensic psychologists has decreased.[98]
Protection of test items and ethics

Outlines of the ten official inkblots were first made publicly available by William Poundstone in his 1983 book Big Secrets, which also described the method of administering the test. The blots are in the public domain in most countries, particularly those with a copyright termof up to 70 years post mortem auctoris. The American Psychological Association (APA) has a code of ethics that supports "freedom of inquiry and expression" and helping "the public in developing informed judgments".[99] It claims that its goals include "the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work", and it requires that psychologists "make reasonable efforts to maintain the
integrity and security of test materials". The APA has also raised concerns that the dissemination of test materials might impose "very concrete harm to the general public". It has not taken a position on publication of the Rorschach plates but noted "there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose".[100] For example, the Rorschach test is capable of detectingsuicidality.[101][102][103] A public statement by the British Psychological Society expresses similar concerns about psychological tests (without mentioning any test by name) and considers the "release of [test] materials to unqualified individuals" to be misuse if it is against the wishes of the test publisher.[104] In his book Ethics in psychology, Koocher (1998) notes that some believe "reprinting copies of the Rorschach plates ... and listing common responses represents a serious unethical act" for psychologists and is indicative of "questionable professional judgment".[105] Other professional associations, such as the Italian Association of Strategic Psychotherapy, recommend that even information about the purpose of the test or any detail of its administration should be kept from the public, even though "cheating" the test is held to be practically impossible.[106] On September 9, 2008, Hogrefe attempted to claim copyright over the Rorschach ink blots during fillings of a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization against Ney Limonge of Brazil. These complaints were denied.[107] Further complaints were sent to two other websites that contained information similar to the Rorschach test in May 2009 by legal firm Schluep and Degen of Switzerland.[108][109] Psychologists have sometimes refused to disclose tests and test data to courts when asked to do so by the parties citing ethical reasons; it is argued that such refusals may hinder full understanding of the process by the attorneys, and impede cross-examination of the experts. APA ethical standard 1.23(b) states that the psychologist has a responsibility to document processes in detail and of adequate quality to allow reasonable scrutiny by the court.[110] Controversy ensued in the psychological community in 2009 when the original Rorschach plates and research results on interpretations were published in the "Rorschach test" article on Wikipedia.[111] Hogrefe & Huber Publishing, a German company that sells editions of the plates, called the publication "unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia" and said it was investigating the possibility of legal action.[111] Dr. James Heilman, a Canadian emergency room physician involved in the debate, compared it to the publication of the eye test chart: though people are likewise free to memorize the eye chart before an eye test, its general usefulness as a diagnostic tool for eyesight has not diminished.
[111]
For those opposed to exposure, publication of the inkblots is described as a "particularly
painful development", given the tens of thousands of research papers which have, over many
years, "tried to link a patients responses to certain psychological conditions."[111]Controversy over Wikipedia's publication of the inkblots has resulted in the blots being published in other locations, such as The Guardianand The Globe And Mail.[112] Publication of the Rorschach images is also welcomed by critics who consider the test to be pseudoscience. Benjamin Radford, editor ofSkeptical Inquirer magazine, stated that the Rorschach "has remained in use more out of tradition than good evidence," and was hopeful that publication of the test may finally hasten its demise.[113]
[edit]Thematic
apperception test
Main article: Thematic Apperception Test Another popular projective test is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) in which an individual views ambiguous scenes of people, and is asked to describe various aspects of the scene; for example, the subject may be asked to describe what led up to this scene, the emotions of the characters, and what might happen afterwards. The examiner then evaluates these descriptions, attempting to discover the conflicts, motivations and attitudes of the respondent. In the answers, the respondent "projects" their unconscious attitudes and motivations into the picture, which is why these are referred to as "projective tests."
Thematic Apperception Test

Psychology portal
The Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT, is a projective psychological test. Historically, it has been among the most widely used, researched, and taught of such tests. Its adherents claim that it taps a subject's unconscious to reveal repressed aspects of personality, motives and needs for achievement, power and intimacy, and problemsolving abilities.
Contents
[hide]
1 Procedure
2 Scoring Systems 3 History 4 Criticisms 5 Contemporary applications of TAT 6 TAT in popular culture 7 See also 8 References 9 External links
[edit]Procedure The TAE is popularly known as the picture interpretation technique because it uses a standard series of provocative yet ambiguous picturesabout which the subject must tell a story. The subject is asked to tell as dramatic a story as they can for each picture presented, including: what has led up to the event shown what is happening at the moment what the characters are feeling and thinking, and what the outcome of the story was.
If these elements are omitted, particularly for children or individuals of low cognitive abilities, the evaluator may ask the subject about them directly. There are 31 picture cards in the standard form of the TAT. Some of the cards show male figures, some female, some both male and female figures, some of ambiguous gender, some adults, some children, and some show no human figures at all. One is completely blank. Although the cards were originally designed to be matched to the subject in terms of age and gender, any card may be used with any subject. Most practitioners choose a set of approximately ten cards, either using cards that they feel are generally useful, or that they believe will encourage the subject's expression of emotional conflicts relevant to their specific history and situation. [1] [edit]Scoring
Systems
The TAT is a projective test in that, like the Rorschach test, its assessment of the subject is based on what he or she projects onto the ambiguous images. Therefore, to complete the assessment each story created by a subject must be carefully analyzed to uncover underlying needs, attitudes, and patterns of reaction. Although most clinical practitioners do not
use formal scoring systems, several formal scoring systems have been developed for analyzing TAT stories systematically and consistently. Two common methods that are currently used in research are the: Defense Mechanisms Manual DMM[2]. This assesses three defense
mechanisms: denial (least mature), projection (intermediate), andidentification (most mature). A person's thoughts/feelings are projected in stories involved. Social Cognition and Object Relations SCOR[3] scale. This assesses four different
dimensions of object relations: Complexity of Representations of People, Affect-Tone of Relationship Paradigms, Capacity for Emotional Investment in Relationships and Moral Standards, and Understanding of Social Causality. [edit]History TAT was developed by the American psychologists Henry A. Murray and Christiana D. Morgan at Harvard during the 1930s to explore the underlying dynamics of personality, such as internal conflicts, dominant drives, interests, and motives. According to Melville scholar Howard P Vincent, the TAT came into being when Dr. Henry A. Murray, psychologist and Melvillist , adapted the implicit lesson of Melvilles [Moby Dick] Doubloon chapter to a new and larger creative, therapeutic purpose. After World War II, the TAT was adopted more broadly by psychoanalysts and clinicians to evaluate emotionally disturbed patients. Later, in the 1970s, the Human Potential Movement encouraged psychologists to use the TAT to help their clients understand themselves better and stimulate personal growth. [edit]Criticisms Declining adherence to the Freudian principle of repression on which the test is based has caused the TAT to be criticised as false or outdated by many professional psychologists[citation
needed]
. Their criticisms are that the TAT is unscientific because it cannot be proved to be valid (that
it actually measures what it claims to measure), or reliable (that it gives consistent results over time, due to the challenge of standardising interpretations of the stories produced by subjects). Some critics of the TAT cards have observed that the characters and environments are dated, even old-fashioned, creating a cultural or psychosocial distance between the patients and these stimuli that makes identifying with them less likely [4]. Also, in researching the responses of subjects given photographs versus the TAT, researchers found that the TAT cards evoked more
deviant stories (i.e., more negative) than photographs, leading them to conclude that the difference was due to the differences in the characteristics of the images used as stimuli[citation
needed]
In a 2005 dissertation,[5] Matthew Narron, Psy.D. attempted to address these issues by reproducing a Leopold Bellak [6] 10 card set photographically and performing an outcome study. The results concluded that the old TAT elicited answers that included many more specific time references than the new TAT. [edit]Contemporary
applications of TAT
Despite criticisms, the TAT remains widely used as a tool for research into areas of psychology such as dreams, fantasies, mate selectionand what motivates people to choose their occupation. Sometimes it is used in a psychiatric or psychological context to assess personality disorders, thought disorders, in forensic examinations to evaluate crime suspects, or to screen candidates for high-stress occupations. It is also commonly used in routine psychological evaluations, typically without a formal scoring system, as a way to explore emotional conflicts and object relations [7]. TAT is widely used in France and Argentina using a psychodynamic approach. The Israeli army uses the test for evaluating potential officers.[citation needed] It is also used by the Services Selection Board of India.[citation needed] [edit]TAT
in popular culture
Thomas Harris' novel Red Dragon includes a scene where the imprisoned psychiatrist
and serial killer Dr. Hannibal Lecter mocks a previous attempt to administer the test to him. Michael Crichton included the TAT in the battery of tests given to the disturbed patient
and main character Harry Benson in his novel, The Terminal Man. In the MTV cartoon Daria, Daria and her sister Quinn are given a test that appears to be
the TAT by the school psychologist on their first day at their new school. Daria and Quinn are shown a picture of two people. Quinn makes up a story about the two people having a discussion about popularity and dating. Daria states that she sees "a herd of beautiful wild ponies running free across the plains." The psychologist tells her the picture is of two people, not ponies. Daria states, "last time I took one of these tests they told me they were clouds. They said they could be whatever I wanted." The psychologist explains, "That's a different test, dear. In this test, they're people and you tell me what they're discussing." To which Daria characteristically replies, "Oh... I see. All right, then. It's a guy and a girl and they're
discussing... a herd of beautiful wild ponies running free across the plains."[8] (Cf. the Rorschach test administered to Charly Gordon in Flowers for Algernon, during which Drs. Niemur and Strauss ask him what he "sees" on a card, he replies that he sees an inkblot, they ask him to pretend that it is something else, and he replies that he "pretends" a tablecloth with an ink pen "leeking" all over it.) The TAT is administered to Alex, the main character of A Clockwork Orange.
Charlie Gordon, the protagonist in Daniel Keyes' Flowers for Algernon, notes in his progress report 4 on March 6th that he was given a "Thematic Appreciation Test." As he says, "I dont know the frist 2 werds but I know what test means. You got to pass it or you get bad marks [sic]"
[edit]Draw-A-Person
test
Main article: Draw-A-Person Test The Draw-A-Person test requires the subject to draw a person. The results are based on a psychodynamic interpretation of the details of the drawing, such as the size, shape and complexity of the facial features, clothing and background of the figure. As with other projective tests, the approach has very little demonstrated validity and there is evidence that therapists may attribute pathology to individuals who are merely poor artists.[1] A similar class of techniques is kinetic family drawing.
Draw-A-Person Test
Smiling person (combined head and body) age 4.
The Draw-A-Person Test (DAP, DAP test, or Goodenough-Harris Draw-A-Person Test) is a psychological projective personality or cognitive test used to evaluate children and adolescents for a variety of purposes.
Contents
[hide]
1 History 2 Nature of the test 3 See also 4 Notes and References
[edit]History Developed originally by Florence Goodenough in 1926, this test was first known as the Goodenough Draw-A-Man test. It is detailed in her book titled Measurement of Intelligence by Drawings. Dr. Dale B. Harris later revised and extended the test and it is now known as theGoodenough-Harris Drawing Test. The revision and extension is detailed in his book Children's Drawings as Measures of Intellectual Maturity(1963). Psychologist Julian Jaynes, in the 1976 book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind wrote that the test is "routinely administered as an indicator of schizophrenia," and that while not all schizophrenic patients have trouble drawing a person, when they do, it is very clear evidence of a disorder. And that such signs might be a patient's neglect to include "obvious anatomical parts like hands and eyes," with "blurred and unconnected lines," ambiguous sexuality and general distortion.[1] There has been no validation of this test as indicative of schizophrenia. Chapman and Chapman (1969), in a classic study of illusory correlation, showed that the scoring manual, e.g., large eyes as indicative of paranoia, could be generated from the naive beliefs of undergraduates. [edit]Nature
of the test
Test administration involves the administrator requesting children to complete three individual drawings on separate pieces of paper. Children are asked to draw a man, a woman, and themselves. No further instructions are given and the child is free to make the drawing in whichever way he/she would like. There is no right or wrong type of drawing, although the child must make a drawing of a whole person each time - i.e. head to feet, not just the face. The test has no time limit, however, children rarely take longer than about 10 or 15 minutes to complete all three drawings. Harris's book (1963) provides scoring scales which are used to examine and
score the child's drawings. The test is completely non-invasive and non-threatening to children which is part of its appeal. To evaluate intelligence, the test administrator uses the Draw-a-Person: QSS (Quantitative Scoring System). This system analyzes fourteen different aspects of the drawings, such as specific body parts and clothing, for various criteria, including presence or absence, detail, and proportion. In all, there are 64 scoring items for each drawing. A separate standard score is recorded for each drawing, and a total score for all three. The use of a nonverbal, nonthreatening task to evaluate intelligence is intended to eliminate possible sources of bias by reducing variables like primary language, verbal skills, communication disabilities, and sensitivity to working under pressure. However, test results can be influenced by previous drawing experience, a factor that may account for the tendency of middle-class children to score higher on this test than lower-class children, who often have fewer opportunities to draw. To assess the test-taker for emotional problems, the administrator uses the Draw-a-Person: SPED (Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance) to score the drawings. This system is composed of two types of criteria. For the first type, eight dimensions of each drawing are evaluated against norms for the child's age group. For the second type, 47 different items are considered for each drawing. The purpose of the test is to assist professionals in inferring children's cognitive developmental levels with little or no influence of other factors such as language barriers or special needs. Any other uses of the test are merely projective and are not endorsed by the first creator. [edit]See
also
completion test
[edit]Sentence
Main article: Sentence completion tests Sentence completion tests require the subject complete sentence "stems" with their own words. The subject's response is considered to be a projection of their conscious and/or unconscious attitudes,personality characteristics, motivations, and beliefs.
Sentence completion tests

Sentence completion tests are a class of semi-structured projective techniques. Sentence completion tests typically provide respondents with beginnings of sentences, referred to as stems, and respondents then complete the sentences in ways that are meaningful to them. The responses are believed to provide indications of attitudes, beliefs, motivations, or other mental states. There is debate over whether or not sentence completion tests elicit responses from
conscious thought rather than unconscious states. This debate would affect whether sentence completion tests can be strictly categorized as projective tests. A sentence completion test form may be relatively short, such as those used to assess responses to advertisements, or much longer, such as those used to assess personality. A long sentence completion test is the Forer Sentence Completion Test, which has 100 stems. The tests are usually administered in booklet form where respondents complete the stems by writing words on paper. The structures of sentence completion tests vary according to the length and relative generality and wording of the sentence stems. Structured tests have longer stems that lead respondents to more specific types of responses; less structured tests provide shorter stems, which produce a wider variety of responses.
Contents
[hide]
1 History 2 Uses 3 Examples of sentence completion tests 4 Data analysis, validity and reliability 5 References
[edit]History Herman Von Ebbinghaus is generally credited with developing the first sentence completion test in 1897.[1] Ebbinghauss sentence completion test was used as part of an intelligence test.[2] Carl Jungs word association test may also have been a precursor to modern sentence completion tests. In recent decades, sentence completion tests have increased in usage, in part because they are easy to develop and easy to administer. As of the 1980s, sentence completion tests were the seventh most widely used personality assessment instruments.[3] Another reason for the increased usage of sentence completion tests is because of their superiority to other measures in uncovering conflicted attitudes.[4] Some sentence completion tests were developed as a way to overcome the problems associated with thematic apperception measures of the same constructs.[5]
[edit]Uses The uses of sentence completion tests include personality analysis, clinical applications, attitude assessment, achievement motivation, and measurement of other constructs. They are used in several disciplines, including psychology, management, education, and marketing. Sentence completion measures have also been incorporated into non-projective applications, such as intelligence tests, language comprehension, and language and cognitive development tests.[6] [edit]Examples
of sentence completion tests
There are many sentence completion tests available for use by researchers. Some of the most widely used sentence completion tests include: Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank (assesses personality traits; perhaps the most widely
used of all sentence completion tests). Miner Sentence Completion Test (measures managerial motivations). Washington University Sentence Completion Test (measures ego development).
[edit]Data
analysis, validity and reliability
The data collected from sentence completion tests can usually be analyzed either quantitatively or qualitatively.[7] Sentence completion tests usually include some formal coding procedure or manual. The validity of each sentence completion test must be determined independently and this depends on the instructions laid out in the scoring manual. Compared to positivist instruments, such as Likert-type scales, sentence completion tests tend to have high face validity (i.e., the extent to which measurement items accurately reflect the concept being measured). This is to be expected, because in many cases the sentence stems name or refer to specific objects and the respondent is provides responses specifically focused on such objects. [edit]References
[edit]Uses
in marketing
Projective techniques, including TATs, are used in qualitative marketing research, for example to help identify potential associations betweenbrand images and the emotions they may provoke. In advertising, projective tests are used to evaluate responses to advertisements. The tests have also been used in management to assess achievement motivation and other drives, in sociology to assess the adoption of innovations, and in anthropology to study cultural meaning. The application of responses is different in these disciplines than in psychology, because the responses of multiple respondents are grouped together for analysis by the organisation commissioning the research, rather than interpreting the meaning of the responses given by a single subject.
oltzman Inkblot Test

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(July 2009)
The Holtzman Inkblot Test, conceived by Wayne Holtzman, is a projective personality test similar to the Rorschach test. The Holtzman Inkblot Test was invented to correct many, if not all, of the controversial issues aroused by the Rorschach Inkblot Test. The test consists of two alternate forms of forty-five inkblots, originally drawn from a pool of several thousand. Scoring is based on twenty-two items: reaction time, rejection, location, space, form definiteness, form appropriateness, color, shading, movement, pathognomonicverbalization, integration, content (human, animal, anatomy, sexual, or abstract), anxiety, hostility, barrier, penetration, balance, and popularity. Scoring takes a very long time if the test is not administered by computer. The Holtzman Inkblot Test is used primarily with students, children, and with patients suffering from schizophrenia, head trauma or depression. The Holtzman Inkblot Test has been used in both experimental and clinical applications.[citation needed] The technique is featured as part of a travelling exhibition entitled "Psychology: Understanding Ourselves, Understanding Each Other" and sponsored by the American Psychological Association in partnership with the Ontario Science Centre. It is housed permanently at theSmithsonian Institution.[1]
Objective tests (Rating scale or self-report measure)
Objective tests have a restricted response format, such as allowing for true or false answers or rating using an ordinal scale. Prominent examples of objective personality tests include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III,[3] Child Behavior Checklist,[4] and the Beck Depression Inventory.[5] Objective personality tests can be designed for use in business for potential employees, such as the NEO-PI, the 16PF, and the OPQ (Occupational Personality Questionnaire), all of which are based on the Big Fivetaxonomy. The Big Five, or Five Factor Model of normal personality, has gained acceptance since the early 1990s when some influential meta-analyses (e.g., Barrick & Mount 1991) found consistent relationships between the Big Five personality factors and important criterion variables. Another personality test based upon the Five Factor Model is the Five Factor Personality Inventory - Children (FFPI-C.).[6]
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is one of the most frequently used personality tests in mental health. The test is used by trained professionals to assist in identifying personality structure and psychopathology.
Contents
[hide]
o o o o o o o o o
1 History and development 1.1 MMPI 1.2 MMPI-2 1.3 MMPI-A 1.4 MMPI-2 RF 2 Current scale composition 2.1 Clinical scales 2.2 Validity scales 2.3 Content scales 2.4 PSY-5 scales 3 Scoring and interpretation 4 Criticism and controversy 4.1 RC and Clinical Scales
o
5 Notes
4.2 Lees-Haley "Fake Bad" Scale
6 See also 7 External links
[edit]History
and development
The original authors of the MMPI were Starke R. Hathaway, PhD, and J. C. McKinley, MD. The MMPI is copyrighted by the University of Minnesota. The standardized answer sheets can be hand scored with templates that fit over the answer sheets, but most tests are computer scored. Computer scoring programs for the current standardized version, the MMPI-2, are licensed by the University of Minnesota Press to Pearson Assessments and other companies located in different countries. The computer scoring programs offer a range of scoring profile choices including the extended score report, which includes data on the newest and most psychometrically advanced scalesthe Restructured Clinical Scales (RC scales).[1] The extended score report also provides scores on the more traditionally used Clinical Scales as well as Content, Supplementary, and other subscales of potential interest to clinicians. Use of the MMPI is tightly controlled for ethical and financial reasons. The clinician using the MMPI has to pay for materials and for scoring and report services, as well as a charge to install the computerized program. The tests are mentioned in Thomas Harris' 1988 novel The Silence of the Lambs, by character Clarice Starling, as ones she is familiar with. [edit]MMPI The original MMPI was developed in 1939 (Groth Marnat, Handbook of Psychological Assessment, 2009) using an empirical keying approach, which means that the clinical scales were derived by selecting items that were endorsed by patients known to have been diagnosed with certain pathologies.[2][3][4][5][6] The difference between this approach and other test development strategies used around that time was that it was atheoretical (not based on any particular theory) and thus the initial test was not aligned with the prevailing psychodynamic theories of that time. The atheoretical approach to MMPI development ostensibly enabled the test to capture aspects of human psychopathology that were recognizable and meaningful despite changes in clinical theories. However, because the MMPI scales were created based on a group with known psychopathologies, the scales themselves are not atheoretical by way of using the participants' clinical diagnoses to determine the scales' contents. [edit]MMPI-2
The first major revision of the MMPI was the MMPI-2, which was standardized on a new national sample of adults in the United States and released in 1989.[7] It is appropriate for use with adults 18 and over. Subsequent revisions of certain test elements have been published, and a wide variety of subscales was also introduced over many years to help clinicians interpret the results of the original clinical scales, which had been found to contain a general factor that made interpretation of scores on the clinical scales difficult. The current MMPI-2 has 567 items, all trueor-false format, and usually takes between 1 and 2 hours to complete depending on reading level. There is an infrequently used abbreviated form of the test that consists of the MMPI-2's first 370 items[8]. The shorter version has been mainly used in circumstances that have not allowed the full version to be completed (e.g., illness or time pressure), but the scores available on the shorter version are not as extensive as those available in the 567-item version. [edit]MMPI-A A version of the test designed for adolescents, the MMPI-A, was released in 1992.[9] The MMPI-A has 478 items, with a short form of 350 items. [edit]MMPI-2
RF
A new and psychometrically improved version of the MMPI-2 has recently been developed employing rigorous statistical methods that were used to develop the RC Scales in 2003.[10] The new MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) has now been released by Pearson Assessments. The MMPI-2-RF produces scores on a theoretically grounded, hierarchically structured set of scales, including the RC Scales. The modern methods used to develop the MMPI-2-RF were not available at the time the MMPI was originally developed. The MMPI-2-RF builds on the foundation of the RC Scales, which have been extensively researched since their publication in 2003. Publications on the MMPI-2-RC Scales include book chapters, multiple published articles in peer-reviewed journals, and address the use of the scales in a wide range of settings.[11][12][13][14][15]
[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
The MMPI-2-RF scales rest on an assumption that psychopathology is a
homogenous condition that is additive. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30] [edit]Current [edit]Clinical
scale composition
scales
Scale 1 (formerly known as the Hypochondriasis Scale) : Measures a person's perception of their health or actual injuries or health issues., Scale 2 (formerly known as the Depression Scale) : Measures a person's discouragement level., Scale 3 (formerly known as the Hysteria Scale) : Measures the emotionality of a person., Scale 4 (formerly known as the Psychopathic Deviate Scale) : Measures a person's need for control or their rebellion against control., Scale 5 (formerly known as the Femininity/Masculinity Scale) : Measures a stereotype of a person and how they
compare. For men it would be the Marlboro man, for women it would be June Cleaver or Donna Reed., Scale 6 (formerly known as the Paranoia Scale) : Measures a person's ability to trust., Scale 7 (formerly known as the Psychestenia Scale) : Measures whether someone made it into adulthood with or without unresolved issues., Scale 8 (formerly known as the Schizophrenia Scale) : Measures a person's ability to have original or unique thoughts and whether they can think outside the box., Scale 9 (formerly known as the Mania Scale) : Measures a person's psychic energy., scale 0 (formerly known as the Social Introversion Scale) : Measures whether people like to be around other people. The original clinical scales were designed to measure common diagnoses of the era. While the descriptions of each type were originally used in assessment, the current practice is to use the numbers only. No. of Items
Number Abbreviation
Description
What is Measured
Hs
Hypochondriasis
Concern with bodily symptoms
32
Depression
Depressive Symptoms
57
Hy
Hysteria
Awareness of problems and vulnerabilities
60
Pd
Psychopathic Deviate
Conflict, struggle, anger, respect for society's 50 rules
MF
Masculinity/Femininity
Stereotypical masculine or feminine interests/behaviors
56
Pa
Paranoia
Level of trust, suspiciousness, sensitivity
40
Pt
Psychasthenia
Worry, Anxiety, tension, doubts, obsessiveness
48
Sc
Schizophrenia
Odd thinking and social alienation
78
Ma
Hypomania
Level of excitability
46
Si
Social Introversion
People orientation
69
Codetypes are a combination of the one or two highest-scoring clinical scales (ex. - 8, 48). Codetypes and interaction of clinical scales can be quite complex and require specialized training to properly interpret. [edit]Validity
scales
The validity scales in the MMPI-2 RF are minor revisions of those contained in the MMPI-2, which includes three basic types of validity measures: those that were designed to detect nonresponding or inconsistent responding (CNS, VRIN, TRIN), those designed to detect when clients are over reporting or exaggerating the prevalence or severity of psychological symptoms (F, Fb, Fp, FBS), and those designed to detect when test-takers are underreporting or downplaying psychological symptoms (L, K)). A new addition to the validity scales for the MMPI-2 RF includes an over reporting scale of somatic symptoms scale (Fs). New in version
Abbreviation
Description
Assesses
"Cannot Say"
Questions not answered
Lie
Client "faking good"
Infrequency
Client "faking bad" (in first half of test)
Defensiveness
Denial/Evasiveness
Fb
Back F
Client "faking bad" (in last half of test)
VRIN
Variable Response Inconsistency
answering similar/opposite question pairs inconsistently
TRIN
True Response Inconsistency answering questions all true/all false
F-K
F minus K
honesty of test responses/not faking good or bad
Superlative Self-Presentation
improving upon K scale, "appearing excessively good"
Fp
F-Psychopathology
Frequency of presentation in clinical setting
Fs
2 RF
Infrequent Somatic Response Overreporting of somatic symptoms
[edit]Content
scales
To supplement these multidimensional scales and to assist in interpreting the frequently seen diffuse elevations due to the general factor (removed in the RC scales)[31][32] were also developed, with the more frequently used being the substance abuse scales (MAC-R, APS, AAS), designed to assess the extent to which a client admits to or is prone to abusing substances, and the A (anxiety) and R (repression) scales, developed by Welsh after conducting a factor analysis of the original MMPI item pool. Dozens of content scales currently exist, the following are some samples: Abbreviation Description
Es
Ego Strength Scale
OH
Over-Controlled Hostility Scale
MAC
MacAndrews Alcoholism Scale
MAC-R
MacAndrews Alcoholism Scale Revised
Do
Dominance Scale
APS
Addictions Potential Scale
AAS
Addictions Acknowledgement Scale
SOD
Social Discomfort Scale
Anxiety Scale
Repression Scale
TPA
Type A Scale
MDS
Marital Distress Scale
[edit]PSY-5
scales
Unlike the Content and Supplementary scales, the PSY-5 scales were not developed as a reaction to some actual or perceived shortcoming in the MMPI-2 itself, but rather as an attempt to connect the instrument with more general trend in personality psychology.[33] The five factor model of human personality has gained great acceptance in non-pathological populations, and the PSY-5 scales differ from the 5 factors identified in non-pathological populations in that they were meant to determine the extent to which personality disorders might manifest and be recognizable in clinical populations. The five components were labeled Negative Emotionality (NEGE), Psychoticism (PSYC), Introversion (INTR), Disconstraint (DISC) and Aggressiveness (AGGR). [edit]Scoring
and interpretation
Like many standardized tests, scores on the various scales of the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF are not representative of either percentile rank or how "well" or "poorly" someone has done on the test. Rather, analysis looks at relative elevation of factors compared to the various norm groups studied. Raw scores on the scales are transformed into a standardized metric known as T-scores (Mean or Average equals 50,Standard Deviation equals 10), making interpretation easier for clinicians. Test manufacturers and publishers ask test purchasers to prove they are qualified to purchase the MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF and other tests[citation needed].
[edit]Criticism [edit]RC
and controversy
and Clinical Scales
Some questions have been raised about the RC Scales and the forthcoming release of the MMPI-2-RF, which eliminates the older clinical scales entirely in favor of the more psychometrically appealing RC scales. The replacement of the original Clinical Scales with the RC scales has not been met with universal approval, and has warranted enough discussion to prompt a special issue of the academic Journal of Personality Assessment (Vol 87, Issue 2, October 2006) to provide each side with a forum to voice their opinions regarding the old and new measures. Individuals in favor of retaining the older Clinical scales have argued that the new RC scales are measuring pathology which is markedly different than that measured by the original clinical scales.[34][35] This claim is not supported by results of research, which has found the RC scales to be cleaner, more pure versions of the original clinical scales because 1) the interscale correlations are greatly reduced and no items are contained in more than one RC scale and, 2) common variance spread across the older clinical scales due to a general factor common to psychopathology is parsed out and contained in a separate scale measuring demoralization (RCdem).[36][37] Critics of the new scales argue that the removal of this common variance makes the RC scales less ecologically valid (less like real life) because real patients tend to present complex patterns of symptoms. However, this issue is addressed by being able to view elevations on other RC scales that are less saturated with the general factor and, therefore, are also more transparent and much easier to interpret. Critics of the RC scales assert they have deviated too far from the original clinical scales, the implication being that previous research done on the clinical scales will no longer be relevant to the interpretation of the RC scales and the burden of proof should be on the RC scales to demonstrate they are clearly superior to the original clinical scales. Proponents of the RC scales assert that research has adequately addressed those issues with results indicating that the RC scales predict pathology in their designated areas better than their concordant original clinical scales while using significantly fewer items and maintaining equal to higher internal consistency reliability and validity, and are not weaker at identifying the core elements of the original clinical scales; further, unlike the original clinical scales, the RC scales are not saturated with the primary factor (demoralization, now captured in RCdem) which frequently produced diffuse elevations and made interpretation of results difficult; finally, the RC scales have lower interscale correlations and, in contrast to the original clinical scales, contain no interscale item overlap.[38] A more basic criticism is that the MMPI-2 RF scales rest on an assumption that psychopathology is a
homogenous condition that is additive. Although symptoms are mainly homogenous, most psychodiagnostic conditions such as hysteria, PTSD, DID are composed of defenses, contradictory states, and seemingly unrelated signs and symptoms that can not be measured by scales that were made to have high internal consistency. [edit]Lees-Haley
"Fake Bad" Scale
The following discussion concerns the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale; there are several other "fake bad" scales (aside from the standard F and Fb scales, which are the original "fake bad" scales) that have been in existence since 1950, and which have not been subject to the same kind of controversy as the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale. These include the F-K scale [39], the Gough Dissimilation index (Ds-r) [40], and the Wiener-Harmon Subtle and Obvious Scales (S-O) [41]. In March 2008 a front page article in the Wall Street Journal[42] exposed what it claimed to be the lack of scientific validity of the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale, which is used in courts as argument for malingering in injury litigation. According to the article, two Florida judges barred use of the scale after special hearings on its scientific validity. The article reports that this particular "fake bad" scale was developed by psychologist Paul LeesHaley, who works mainly for defendants (insurance companies etc.) in personal injury cases. The article reports that in 1991 Lees-Haley paid to have an article supportive of his scale published in Psychological Reports, which the Wall Street Journal described as "a small Montana-based medical journal." The scale was introduced in MMPI after a review of the literature. This review was considered flawed by its critics because at least 10 of 19 studies reviewed were done by Lees-Haley or other insurance defense psychologists, while 21 other studies critical of the test were excluded from the review. One of the critics of the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale is retired psychologist James Butcher, who found that more than 45 percent of psychiatric patients he studied had Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale scores of 20 or more, which according to the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale meant they were malingering. Butcher contends that it is unlikely that so many psychiatric patients misled doctors. The article quotes Butcher concluding:
This is great for insurance companies, but not great for people.
However, Butcher's own study has been criticized on methodological and conceptual grounds, including the likelihood that his subject pool included many malingerers, that he ignored
recommended gender-related cut-offs, and used a less sensitive or specific MMPI-2 scale as his 'gold-standard.' [43] Despite the reservations of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-R authors (including James Butcher) who have a degree of proprietary control over the test, an independent professional panel recommended that the Lees-Haley FBS be included in the standard Pearson scoring system. [44] Several studies by independent Neuropsychologists have since been published in respected peer-reviewed journals supporting the Lees-Haley FBS scale as highly sensitive and specific (when proper cut-offs are used) in identifying individuals who are exaggerating somatic symptoms (as opposed to psychiatric, mood, or neurological symptoms) in settings where the base-rate of malingering is typically high (litigation, pain clinics, etc.), as it was designed to do. [45] The Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale is now regarded by some authors as a 'gold standard' in such populations. [46]
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory

(Redirected from Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III)
The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) is a psychological assessment tool intended to provide information onpsychopathology, including specific disorders outlined in the DSM-IV. It is intended for adults (18 and over) with at least an 8th grade reading level. The MCMI was developed and standardised specifically on clinical populations (i.e. patients in psychiatric hospitals or people with existing mental health problems), and the authors are very specific that it should not be used with the general population. However, there is a strong evidence base that shows that it still retains validity on non-clinical populations, and so psychologists will often administer the test to members of the general population. It is composed of 175 true-false questions that reportedly takes 25-30 minutes to complete. It was created by Theodore Millon, Carrie Millon, Roger Davis, and Seth Grossman. The test is modeled on four scales 14 Personality Disorder Scales 10 Clinical Syndrome Scales 5 Correction Scales: 3 Modifying Indices (which determine the patient's response style
and can detect random responding); 2 Random Response Indicatiors
42 Grossman Personality Facet Scales (based on Seth Grossman's theories of
personality and psychopathology)[1] The test was normed on a sample of 998 male and female adults with a wide variety of clinical disorders.
Contents
[hide]
1 Scoring system 2 Interpretation 3 See also 4 References 5 External links
[edit]Scoring
system
Patients' raw scores are converted to Base Rate (BR) scores to allow comparison between the personality indices. The Base Rate scores are essentially where each score fits on a scale of 1115, with 60 being the median score. Conversion to a Base Rate score is relatively complex, and there are certain corrections that are administered based on each patient's response style. The Modifying indices are scored using a complex system in which the patient's responses in the other scales are compared and the raw and BR scores are taken from this. The Validity index is an exception to this. It consists of three questions, and so is scored between 0 and 3. It is not converted to a BR score. [edit]Interpretation The modifying indices consist of 4 scales - the Validity scale (V), the Disclosure Scale (X), the Desirability Scale (Y) and the Debasement Scale (Z). They are used to determine a patient's response style, such as whether they were keen to present themselves in a positive light (indicated by an elevation on the Desirability scale) or exaggerate the negative aspects of themselves (indicated by the Debasement scale). It also is used to measure whether the patient was open in the assessment, or if they were unwilling to disclose details about themselves (the Disclosure Scale). These are compared against each other to gain an understanding of the patient's response style. For instance, elevated scores on the Disclosure and Desirability scales suggest a "cry for help" response style.
The Disclosure scale is the only scale in the MCMI-III in which the raw scores are interpreted and in which a particularly low score is clinically relevant. A raw score above 178 or below 34 is considered to not be an accurate representation of the patient's personality style as they either over- or under-disclosed. The Validity Index consists of just three questions in which a response of "True" is extremely unlikely, such as "I was on the front cover of several magazines last year." While only consisting of 3 questions, the scale is very sensitive to random responding. A score of 2 or 3 on this scale would render the test invalid. For the Personality and Clinical Syndrome scales, scores of 75-84 are taken to indicate personality trait, or (for the Clinical Syndromes scales) the presence of a clinical syndrome. Scores of 85 or above indicate the persistence of a personality trait or a clinical syndrome. [edit]See
also
Child Behavior Checklist

The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) is a widely-used method of identifying problem behavior in children.[1][2] It is a component in the Achenbach System of Emperically Based Assessment. Problems are identified by a respondent who knows the child well, usually a parent or teacher. There are two versions of the checklist. The preschool checklist (CBCL/1-5) is intended for use with children aged 18 months to 5 years. The school-age version (CBCL/6-18) is for children aged 6 to 18 years. The checklists consists of a number of statements about the child's behavior, e.g. Acts too young for his/her age. Responses are recorded on a Likert scale: 0 = Not True, 1 = Somewhat or Sometimes True, 2 = Very True or Often True. The preschool checklist contains 100 questions and the school-age checklist contains 120 questions. Similar questions are grouped into a number of syndromes, e.g. Aggressive behavior, and their scores are summed to produce a score for that syndrome. Some syndromes are further summed to provide scores for Internalizing and Externalizing problem scales. A total score from all questions is also derived. For each syndrome, problem scale and the total score, tables are given that determine whether the score represents normal, borderline, or clinical behavior. These categorizations are based on quantiles from a normative sample.[citation needed]
Beck Depression Inventory

Psychology
History of psychology Branches of psychology
Basic science
Abnormal Behavioral neuroscience Cognitive Developmental Experimental Evolutionary Mathematical Neuropsychology Personality Positive Psychophysics Social Transpersonal
Applied science
Clinical Educational Forensic Health Industrial and organizational Occupational health School Sport Military
Lists
Outline Publications Topics Therapies
Portal
vde
The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, BDI-II), created by Dr. Aaron T. Beck, is a 21question multiple-choice self-report inventory, one of the most widely used instruments for measuring the severity ofdepression. Its development marked a shift among health care professionals, who had until then viewed depression from a psychodynamic perspective, instead of it being rooted in the patient's own thoughts. In its current version the questionnaire is designed for individuals aged 13 and over, and is composed of items relating to symptoms of depression such as hopelessness and irritability, cognitions such as guilt or feelings of being punished, as well as physical symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, and lack of interest in sex.[1] There are three versions of the BDIthe original BDI, first published in 1961 and later revised in 1978 as the BDI-1A, and the BDI-II, published in 1996. The BDI is widely used as an assessment tool by health care professionals and researchers in a variety of settings.
Contents
[hide]
o o
1 Development and history 2 BDI 2.1 BDI-IA 3 BDI-II 3.1 Two-factor approach to depression 4 Impact 5 Limitations 6 See also 7 Notes 8 Further reading 9 External links
[edit]Development
and history
Historically, depression was described in psychodynamic terms as "inverted hostility against the self".[2] By contrast, the BDI was developed in a novel way for its time; by collating patients' verbatim descriptions of their symptoms and using these to structure a scale which could reflect the intensity or severity of a given symptom.[1]
Throughout his work, Beck drew attention to the importance of "negative cognitions": sustained, inaccurate, and often intrusive negative thoughts about the self.[3] In his view, it was the case that these cognitions caused depression, rather than being generated by depression. Beck developed a triad of negative cognitions about the world, the future, and the self, which play a major role in depression. An example of the triad in action taken from Brown (1995) is the case of a student obtaining poor exam results: The student has negative thoughts about the world, so he may come to believe he does
not enjoy the class. The student has negative thoughts about his future, because he thinks he may not pass
the class. The student has negative thoughts about his self, as he may feel he does not deserve to
be in college.[4] The development of the BDI reflects that in its structure, with items such as "I have lost all of my interest in other people" to reflect the world, "I feel discouraged about the future" to reflect the future, and "I blame myself for everything bad that happens" to reflect the self. The view of depression as sustained by intrusive negative cognitions has had particular application in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which aims to challenge and neutralize them through techniques such as cognitive restructuring. [edit]BDI The original BDI, first published in 1961[5], consisted of twenty-one questions about how the subject has been feeling in the last week. Each question has a set of at least four possible answer choices, ranging in intensity. For example: (0) I do not feel sad. (1) I feel sad. (2) I am sad all the time and I can't snap out of it. (3) I am so sad or unhappy that I can't stand it.
When the test is scored, a value of 0 to 3 is assigned for each answer and then the total score is compared to a key to determine the depression's severity. The standard cut-offs are as follows: 09 indicates that a person is not depressed, 1018 indicates mild-moderate depression, 1929 indicates moderate-severe depression and 3063 indicates severe depression. Higher total scores indicate more severe depressive symptoms.
Some items on the BDI have more than one statement marked with the same score. For instance, there are two responses under the Mood heading that score a 2: (2a) I am blue or sad all the time and I can't snap out of it and (2b) I am so sad or unhappy that it is very painful.[1] [edit]BDI-IA The BDI-IA was a revision of the original instrument, developed by Beck during the 1970s and copyrighted in 1978. To improve ease of use, the "a and b statements" described above were removed, and respondents were instructed to endorse how they had been feeling during the preceding two weeks.[6][7] The internal consistency for the BDI-IA was good, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of around 0.85, meaning that the items on the inventory are highly correlated with each other.[8] However, this version retained some flaws; the BDI-IA only addressed six out of the nine DSMIII criteria for depression. This and other criticisms were addressed in the BDI-II. [edit]BDI-II The BDI-II was a 1996 revision of the BDI,[7] developed in response to the American Psychiatric Association's publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, which changed many of the diagnostic criteria for Major Depressive Disorder. Items involving changes in body image, hypochondria, and difficulty working were replaced. Also, sleep loss and appetite loss items were revised to assess both increases and decreases in sleep and appetite. All but three of the items were reworded; only the items dealing with feelings of being punished, thoughts about suicide, and interest in sex remained the same. Finally, participants were asked to rate how they have been feeling for the past two weeks, as opposed to the past week as in the original BDI. Like the BDI, the BDI-II also contains 21 questions, each answer being scored on a scale value of 0 to 3. The cutoffs used differ from the original: 013: minimal depression; 1419: mild depression; 2028: moderate depression; and 2963: severe depression. Higher total scores indicate more severe depressive symptoms. One measure of an instrument's usefulness is to see how closely it agrees with another similar instrument that has been validated against clinical interview by a trained clinician. In this respect, the BDI-II is positively correlated with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with aPearson r of 0.71, showing good agreement. The test was also shown to have a high one-week testretest reliability (Pearson r =0.93), suggesting that it was not overly sensitive to daily variations in mood.
[9]
The test also has high internal consistency (=.91).[7]
[edit]Two-factor
approach to depression
Depression can be thought of as having two components: the affective component (e.g. mood) and the physical or "somatic" component (e.g. loss of appetite). The BDI-II reflects this and can be separated into two subscales. The purpose of the subscales is to help determine the primary cause of a patient's depression. The affective subscale contains eight items: pessimism, past failures, guilty feelings, punishment feelings, self-dislike, self-criticalness,suicidal thoughts or wishes, and worthlessness. The somatic subscale consists of the other thirteen items: sadness, loss of pleasure, crying, agitation, loss of interest, indecisiveness, loss of energy, change in sleep patterns, irritability, change in appetite, concentration difficulties, tiredness and/or fatigue, and loss of interest in sex. The two subscales were moderately correlated at 0.57, suggesting that the physical and psychological aspects of depression are closely related rather than totally distinct.[10][11] [edit]Impact The development of the BDI was an important event in psychiatry and psychology; it represented a shift in health care professionals' view of depression from a Freudian, psychodynamic perspective, to one guided by the patient's own thoughts or "cognitions".[2] It also established the principle that instead of attempting to develop a psychometric tool based on a possibly invalid theory, self-report questionnaires when analysed using techniques such as factor analysis can suggest theoretical constructs. The BDI was originally developed to provide a quantative assessment of the intensity of depression. Because it is designed to reflect the depth of depression, it can monitor changes over time and provide an objective measure for judging improvement and the effectiveness or otherwise of treatment methods.[12] The instrument remains widely used in research; in 1998, it had been used in over 2000 empirical studies.[13] It has been translated into multiple European languages as well as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Persian,[14] and Xhosa.[15] [edit]Limitations The BDI suffers from the same problems as other self-report inventories, in that scores can be easily exaggerated or minimized by the person completing them. Like all questionnaires, the way the instrument is administered can have an effect on the final score. If a patient is asked to fill out the form in front of other people in a clinical environment, for instance, social expectations might elicit a different response compared to administration via a postal survey.[16] In participants with concomitant physical illness the BDI's reliance on physical symptoms such as fatigue may artificially inflate scores due to symptoms of the illness, rather than of depression.
[17]
In an effort to deal with this concern Beck and his colleagues developed the "Beck Depression
Inventory for Primary Care" (BDI-PC), a short screening scale consisting of seven items from the BDI-II considered to be independent of physical function. Unlike the standard BDI, the BDI-PC produces only a binary outcome of "not depressed" or "depressed" for patients above a cutoff score of 4.[18] Although designed as a screening device rather than a diagnostic tool, the BDI is sometimes used by health care providers to reach a quick diagnosis.[19]
OPQ
This article does not cite any references or sources.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved. (July 2009)
The Occupational Personality Questionnaires, OPQ or OPQ32, are widely-used occupational personality questionnaires. The authors were Saville et al., including Roger Holdsworth, Gill Nyfield, Lisa Cramp and Bill Mabey, and they were launched by Saville and Holdsworth Ltd. in 1984.[1]. The series included the first commercially-available Big Five instrument. OPQ32 provides an indication of an individuals preferred behavioural style at work; to help employers gauge how a candidate will fit into certain work environments, how they will work with other people and how they will cope with different job requirements. It is now available in more than 30 languages and uses innovative Item Response theory to shorten the questionnaire down to under 30 minutes. The OPQ32 is used in selection, development, team building, succession planning and organisational change.An independent review can be found below (4):

Projective Test

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Projective Test

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Projective test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Theory 2 Common variants 2.1 Rorschach 2.2 Thematic apperception test

1 History 2 Method 2.1 Features or categories

Hermann Rorschach created the Rorschach inkblot test in 1921.

Exner scoring system

The ten inkblots

Beck: human (orange) Piotrowski: none Dana (France): none

Protection of test items and ethics

For those opposed to exposure, publication of the inkblots is described as a "particularly

Thematic Apperception Test

Smiling person (combined head and body) age 4.

1 History 2 Nature of the test 3 See also 4 Notes and References

Sentence completion tests

of sentence completion tests

analysis, validity and reliability

oltzman Inkblot Test

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Objective tests (Rating scale or self-report measure)

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

4.2 Lees-Haley "Fake Bad" Scale

6 See also 7 External links

The MMPI-2-RF scales rest on an assumption that psychopathology is a

homogenous condition that is additive. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30] [edit]Current [edit]Clinical

Concern with bodily symptoms

Awareness of problems and vulnerabilities

Conflict, struggle, anger, respect for society's 50 rules

Stereotypical masculine or feminine interests/behaviors

Level of trust, suspiciousness, sensitivity

Worry, Anxiety, tension, doubts, obsessiveness

Odd thinking and social alienation

Questions not answered

Client "faking good"

Client "faking bad" (in first half of test)

Client "faking bad" (in last half of test)

Variable Response Inconsistency

answering similar/opposite question pairs inconsistently

True Response Inconsistency answering questions all true/all false

honesty of test responses/not faking good or bad

improving upon K scale, "appearing excessively good"

Frequency of presentation in clinical setting

Infrequent Somatic Response Overreporting of somatic symptoms

Ego Strength Scale

Over-Controlled Hostility Scale

MacAndrews Alcoholism Scale

MacAndrews Alcoholism Scale Revised

Addictions Potential Scale

Addictions Acknowledgement Scale

Social Discomfort Scale

Marital Distress Scale

and Clinical Scales

"Fake Bad" Scale

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory

and can detect random responding); 2 Random Response Indicatiors

42 Grossman Personality Facet Scales (based on Seth Grossman's theories of

1 Scoring system 2 Interpretation 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

Child Behavior Checklist

Beck Depression Inventory

History of psychology Branches of psychology

The test also has high internal consistency (=.91).[7]

This article does not cite any references or sources.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai