Abstract
Recent published exchanges have focused on the clinical utility and diagnostic efficiency of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM), but key issues remain unresolved. In this article, 5 principles for evaluating RIM research are offered to help reframe the ongoing debate in this area. These are (a) recognize what the test can and cannot do; (b) choose appropriate outcome criteria to assess RIM effectiveness; (c) use multimethod, multicriterion matrices to place results in an appropriate context; (d) consider limitations in the outcome criteria themselves; and (e) use experimental-not just correlational-data to contrast the results obtained with projective and self-report tests. Coupled with Weiner's (2000a) guidelines for RIM interpretation, the principles outlined here can improve RIM research and practice, and help resolve some longstanding controversies in this area.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
