Evaluation of Projective Tests
Hundreds of studies have been conducted with projective tests, most often
with the Rorschach inkblot test. Responses to the inkblots have been used to
predict everything from intelligence to sexual orientation. Unfortunately, psy-
chologists disagree on how to interpret this research (Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld, &
Nezworski, 2005). Critics point to unacceptably low indices of reliability and
frequent failures to find evidence for the validity of the test (Wood, Nezworski,
& Stejskal, 1996, 1997). One team of reviewers concluded that “there is cur-
rently no scientific basis for justifying the use of Rorschach scales in psychologi-
cal assessment ”(Hunsley & Bailey, 1999, p. 266). Another said bluntly that
the Rorschach inkblot test was “not a valid test of anything” (Dawes, 1994,
p. 146). Some psychologists challenge whether the inkblot procedure shouldbe described as a test at all. They argue that the Rorschach is more accurately
characterized as a highly structured interview.
But there are two sides to every controversy. Advocates of the Rorschach
test raise several important points in its defense. First, one needs to separate
good studies designed to test appropriate predictions from poor studies that
attempt to tie test responses to any and all behaviors (Weiner, 1995, 1996).
When reviewers look at results from sound studies making reasonable predic-
tions, they find evidence for the usefulness of the test (Gronnerod, 2004;
Meyer, 1997; Parker, Hanson, & Hunsley, 1988; Viglione, 1999; Weiner,
1996). Moreover, newer, more rigorous systems for coding Rorschach re-
sponses have proved far more reliable than earlier methods (Viglione &
Hilsenroth, 2001; Weiner, 2001). Second, establishing good validity data for
projective tests is more difficult than when using other kinds of personality
measures. How can we demonstrate empirically that a Rorschach assessment
is accurate? If a therapist concludes from an inkblot test that a client has a
certain unconscious conflict, what objective criterion does the researcher use
to establish the validity of this claim? Indeed, if objective indicators existed,
therapists wouldn ’t need to use projective tests in the first place.
Despite the controversy, the Rorschach and many other projective tests
continue to be widely used (Camara, Nathan, & Puente, 2000; Watkins,Campbell, Nieberding, & Hallmark, 1995). This use extends far beyond psy-
chotherapy. For example, projective tests are often used by school psycholo-
gists to evaluate social and emotional adjustment in children (Hojnoski,Morrison, Brown, & Matthews, 2009) and by psychologists working with
law enforcement and court officials (Gacono & Evans, 2008). One reason
for this popularity is that the tests may uncover information not easily ob-tained through other procedures. For example, therapists working with chil-
dren sometimes allow a child to play with a family of dolls. Imagine a child
who acts out a drama in which the mother and father dolls are cruel to thechild doll. The child might be expressing something about the situation at
home that isn’ t easily revealed through other means.
Then again, many psychologists warn against overinterpreting responses
to projective tests. The child in the previous example could merely be actingout a scene from a recent television program. Because the validity of projec-
tive tests remains open to challenge, psychologists usually are advised not to62 CHAPTER 3 The Psychoanalyt ic Approach