On the Science of Rorschach Research

Abstract

I describe problems in an article by Wood, Nezworski, Stejskal, Garven, and West (1999b). These include (a) claims that researchers found or said things they did not, (b) an assertion that my data did not support the incremental validity of the Rorschach over the MMPI-2 when the opposite was true, (c) complications with their recommended incremental validity procedures, (d) unwarranted criticism of Burns and Viglione's (1996) statistical analyses, (e) oversimplifying issues associated with extreme groups research, (f) misleading criticisms of composite measures, and (g) faulty criticisms of Burns and Viglione's composite scale that overlooked relevant evidence. Wood et al. also asserted that Burns and Viglione's primary Rorschach variable was faulty and created a formula that seemed to show how Burns and Viglione's scores were "incompatible" and "not ... even very close" to those obtained from the proper formula. These criticisms were made even though Wood et al. had been told that their formula was incorrect and shown that it was almost perfectly correlated with the proper formula in 8 large samples (rs > .998). Sound criticism of Rorschach research will advance science and practice, but the Wood et al. article did not provide sufficient guidance.