Fluent Essays

See all required articles to use attach and compare projective and objective methods of personality assessment and provide an evaluation of these techniques organized according to the outline provided below. Use information from the researched peer-reviewed articles and required sources to support each section? Section 1: Objective Personality Assessment? Define the term objective in objective methods of personality assessment? Summarize the features of objective methods of personality assessment, and provide at least three examples of these types of measures? Explain the assumptions on which objective methods are based, and provide an analysis of empirical research testing the validity of the assumptions you identified. Appraise the research exploring the technical adequacy (i.e., reliability and validity) of objective tests? Describe the impact of social and culture variability on the administration and interpretation of objective tests? Section 2: Projective Personality Assessment? Define the term projective in projective methods of personality assessment? Summarize the features of projective methods of personality assessment, and provide at least three examples of these types of measures? Explain the assumptions on which projective methods are based, and provide an analysis of empirical research testing the validity of the assumptions you identified? Appraise the research exploring the technical adequacy (i.e., reliability and validity) of projective tests? Describe the impact of social and culture variability on the administration and interpretation of projective tests? Section 3: Synthesis, Conclusions, and Recommendations? Brief one-paragraph scenario for a fictitious client. Include the following information: presenting concerns (reason for referral), age, gender, ethnicity, language(s), and any other significant information (e.g., military status, health issues, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.)? Debate the arguments supporting and opposing the use of projective and objective personality assessments with your identified client? Select a minimum of one objective and one projective measure to use with your client.?Compare the use of the selected projective and objective personality measures with your identified client?  Analyze the advantages and limitations of each assessment measure you selected? Compose recommendations to improve the validity of personality assessment? CHAPTER 8 Origins of Personality Testing TOPIC 8A Theories of Personality and Projective Techniques 8.1 Personality: An Overview 8.2 Psychoanalytic Theories of Personality 8.3 Type Theories of Personality 8.4 Phenomenological Theories of Personality 8.5 Behavioral and Social Learning Theories 8.6 Trait Conceptions of Personality 8.7 The Projective Hypothesis 8.8 Association Techniques 8.9 Completion Techniques 8.10 Construction Techniques 8.11 Expression Techniques Case Exhibit 8.1 Projective Tests as Ancillary to the Interview In psychological testing a fundamental distinction often is drawn between ability tests and personality tests. Defined in the broadest sense, ability tests include a plethora of instruments for measuring intelligence, achievement, and aptitude. In the preceding seven chapters we have explored the nature, construction, application, reliability, and validity of ability tests. In the next two chapters we shift the emphasis to personality tests and related matters. Personality tests seek to measure one or more of the following: personality traits, dynamic motivation, symptoms of distress, personal strengths, and attitudinal characteristics. Measures of spirituality, creativity, and emotional intelligence also fall within this realm. Theories of personality provide an underpinning for the multiplicity of instruments available in the field. For this reason, we begin this chapter with a survey of prominent personality theories. The many ways in which theorists conceptualize personality clearly have impacted the design of personality tests and assessments. This is especially evident with projective techniques such as the Rorschach inkblot method, which emanated from psychoanalytic conceptions of personality. Thus, in Topic 8A, Theories of Personality and Projective Techniques, in addition to the survey of personality theories, we have included an introduction to several instruments based on the turn-of-the-twentieth- century psychoanalytic hypothesis where responses to ambiguous stimuli reveal the innermost, unconscious mental processes of the examinee. The coverage of personality assessment continues in Topic 8B, Self-Report and Behavioral Assessment of Psychopathology, which includes a review of structured tests and procedures, including self-report inventories and behavioral assessment approaches. These time- honored topics of Chapter 8—theories of personality, projective techniques, and structured personality tests—are followed by the relatively new focus of Chapter 9—the assessment of normality and human strengths. 8.1 PERSONALITY: AN OVERVIEW Although personality is difficult to define, we can distinguish two fundamental features of this vague construct. First, each person is consistent to some extent; we have coherent traits and action patterns that arise repeatedly. Second, each person is distinctive to some extent; behavioral differences exist between individuals. Consider the reactions of three graduate students when their midterm examinations were handed back. Although all three students received nearly identical grades (solid B’s), personal reactions were quite diverse. The first student walked off sullenly and was later overheard to say that a complaint to the departmental administrator was in order. The second student was pleased, stating out loud that a B was, after all, a respectable grade. The third student was disappointed but stoical. He blamed himself for not studying harder. How are we to understand the different reactions of these three persons, each of whom was responding to an identical stimulus? Psychologists and laypersons alike invoke the concept of personality to make sense out of the behavior and expressed feelings of others. The notion of personality is used to explain behavioral differences between persons (for example, why one complains and another is stoical) and to understand the behavioral consistency within each individual (for example, why the complaining student noted previously was generally sour and dissatisfied). Why people differ is just one of many key issues in the study of personality. Mayer (2007– 8) provides a thoughtful discussion of the big questions in personality psychology, which he defines as “those questions that are simple, important, and central to many people’s lives.” He identifies 20 big questions, only a few of which can be addressed through testing and assessment. These questions involve existential matters such as the purpose of life, the nature of personhood, and the difficulties encountered in seeking self-knowledge. His captivating article is a reminder that some vital issues can be approached through the empiricism of psychological research and testing, whereas other crucial matters remain elusive and are amenable mainly to philosophical and phenomenological inquiry. In addition to understanding personality, psychologists also seek to measure it. Literally hundreds of personality tests are available for this purpose; we will review historically prominent instruments and also discuss some promising new approaches. However, in order that the reader can better comprehend the diversity of instruments and approaches, we begin with a more fundamental question: How is personality best conceptualized? As the reader will discover, in order to measure personality we must first envision what it is we seek to measure. The reader will better appreciate the multiplicity of tests and procedures if we also briefly describe the personality theories that comprise the underpinnings for these instruments. 8.2 PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORIES OF PERSONALITY Psychoanalysis was the original creation of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). While it is true that many others have revised and adapted his theories, the changes have been slight in comparison to the substantial foundations that can be traced to this singular genius of the Victorian and early-twentieth-century era. Freud was enormously prolific in his writing and theorizing. We restrict our discussion to just those aspects of psychoanalysis that have influenced psychological testing. In particular, the Rorschach, the Thematic Apperception Test, and most of the projective techniques critiqued in the next topic dictate a psychoanalytic framework for interpretation. Readers who wish a more thorough review of Freud’s contributions can start with the New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (Freud, 1933). Reviews and interpretations of Freud’s theories can be found in Stafford-Clark (1971) and Fisher and Greenberg (1984). Origins of Psychoanalytic Theory Freud began his professional career as a neurologist but was soon specializing in the treatment of hysteria, an emotional disorder characterized by histrionic behavior and physical symptoms of psychic origin such as paralysis, blindness, and loss of sensation. With his colleague Joseph Breuer, Freud postulated that the root cause of hysteria was buried memories of traumatic experiences such as childhood sexual molestation. If these memories could be brought forth under hypnosis, a release of emotion called abreaction would take place and the hysterical symptoms would disappear, at least briefly (Studies on Hysteria, Breuer & Freud, 1893–1895). From these early studies Freud developed a general theory of psychological functioning with the concept of the unconscious as its foundation. He believed that the unconscious was the reservoir of instinctual drives and a storehouse of thoughts and wishes that would be unacceptable to our conscious self. Thus, Freud argued that our most significant personal motivations are largely beyond conscious awareness. The concept of the unconscious was discussed in elaborate detail in his first book (The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud, 1900). Freud believed that dreams portray our unconscious motives in a disguised form. Even a seemingly innocuous dream might actually have a hidden sexual or aggressive meaning, if it is interpreted correctly. Freud’s concept of the unconscious penetrated the very underpinnings of psychological testing early in the twentieth century. An entire family of projective techniques emerged, including ink- blot tests, word association approaches, sentence completion techniques, and storytelling (apperception) techniques (Frank, 1939, 1948). Each of these methods was predicated on the assumption that unconscious motives could be divined from an examinee’s responses to ambiguous and unstructured stimuli. In fact, Rorschach (1921) likened his inkblot test to an X ray of the unconscious mind. Although he patently overstated the power of projective techniques, it is evident from Rorschach’s view that the psychoanalytic conception of the unconscious had a strong influence on testing practices. The Structure of the Mind Freud divided the mind into three structures: the id, the ego, and the superego. The id is the obscure and inaccessible part of our personality that Freud likened to “a chaos, a cauldron of seething excitement.” Because the id is entirely unconscious, we must infer its characteristics indirectly by analyzing dreams and symptoms such as anxiety. From such an analysis, Freud concluded that the id is the seat of all instinctual needs such as for food, water, sexual gratification, and avoidance of pain. The id has only one purpose, to obtain immediate satisfaction for these needs in accordance with the pleasure principle. The pleasure principle is the impulsion toward immediate satisfaction without regard for values, good or evil, or morality. The id is also incapable of logic and possesses no concept of time. The chaotic mental processes of the id are, therefore, unaltered by the passage of time, and impressions that have been pushed down into the id “are virtually immortal and are preserved for whole decades as though they had only recently occurred” (Freud, 1933). If our personality consisted only of an id striving to gratify its instincts without regard for reality, we would soon be annihilated by outside forces. Fortunately, soon after birth, part of the id develops into the ego or conscious self. The purpose of the ego is to mediate between the id and reality. The ego is part of the id and servant to it, but the ego “interpolates between desire and action the procrastinating factor of thought” (Freud, 1933). Thus, the ego is largely conscious and obeys the reality principle; it seeks realistic and safe ways of discharging the instinctual tensions that are constantly pushing forth from the id. The ego must also contend with the superego, the ethical component of personality that starts to emerge in the first five years of life. The superego is roughly synonymous with conscience and comprises the societal standards of right and wrong that are conveyed to us by our parents. The superego is partly conscious, but a large part of it is unconscious, that is, we are not always aware of its existence or operation. The function of the superego is to restrict the attempts of the id and ego to obtain gratification. Its main weapon is guilt, which it uses to punish the wrongdoings of the ego and id. Thus, it is not enough for the ego to find a safe and realistic way for the gratification of id strivings. The ego must also choose a morally acceptable outlet, or it will suffer punishment from its overseer, the superego. This explains why we may feel guilty for immoral behavior such as theft even when getting caught is impossible. Another part of the superego is the ego ideal, which consists of our aims and aspirations. The ego measures itself against the ego ideal and strives to fulfill its demands for perfection. If the ego falls too far short of meeting the standards of the ego ideal, a feeling of guilt may result. We commonly interpret this feeling as a sense of inferiority (Freud, 1933). The Role of Defense Mechanisms The ego certainly has a difficult task, acting as mediator and servant to three tyrants: id, superego, and external reality. It may seem to the reader that the task would be essentially impossible and that the individual would, therefore, be in a constant state of anxiety. Fortunately, the ego has a set of tools at its disposal to help carry out its work, namely, mental strategies collectively labeled defense mechanisms. Defense mechanisms come in many varieties, but they all share three characteristics in common. First, their exclusive purpose is to help the ego reduce anxiety created by the conflicting demands of id, superego, and external reality. In fact, Freud felt that anxiety was a signal telling the ego to invoke one or more defense mechanisms in its own behalf. Defense mechanisms and anxiety are, therefore, complementary concepts in psychoanalytic theory, one existing as a counterforce to the other. The second common feature of defense mechanisms is that they operate unconsciously. Thus, even though defense mechanisms are controlled by the ego, we are not aware of their operation. The third characteristic of defense mechanisms is that they distort inner or outer reality. This property is what makes them capable of reducing anxiety. By allowing the ego to view a challenge from the id, superego, or external reality in a less-threatening manner, defense mechanisms help the ego avoid crippling levels of anxiety. Of course, because they distort reality, the rigid, excessive application of defense mechanisms may create more problems than it solves. Assessment of Defense Mechanisms and Ego Functions Although Freud introduced the concept of defense mechanisms, it was left to his followers to elucidate these unconscious mental strategies in more detail (Paulhus, Fridhandler, & Hayes, 1997). Vaillant (1971) developed a hierarchy of ego defense mechanisms based on the assumption that some mechanisms are healthier or more adaptive than others. He suggested four broad types, listed here in ascending level of maturity: psychotic, immature, neurotic, mature. Each type includes specific defense mechanisms such as denial, projection, repression, and altruism, described below. Perry and Henry (2004) proposed a similar hierarchy of adaptation in defense mechanisms. They also developed a sophisticated rating scale, which, as we will see, is of value in clinical practice. A hierarchy of types of defense mechanisms (least mature to most mature) is provided in Table 8.1. Psychotic defense mechanisms are the least healthy because they distort reality to an extreme degree. One example includes gross denial of external reality such as the refusal to acknowledge the death of a loved one. Another example is delusional projection, which consists of frank delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature. The second grouping, Acting Out, comprises several forms of maladaptive action such as passive-aggressive behavior (e.g., intentional lateness to aggravate a partner), impulsive behavior designed to reduce tension, and complaining while simultaneously rejecting help. Borderline defense mechanisms include patterns of behavior often found in persons with a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The specific mechanisms include splitting, in which the images of others (or self) alternate rapidly from all good to all bad, and projective identification which is the projection of an unwanted, unrecognized trait (like anger) onto others. Neurotic defense mechanisms, the fourth group, are found to some degree in most persons and include repression (inexplicable memory lapses or failure to acknowledge information, such as “forgetting” a dental appointment) and displacement, which comprises the transfer of feelings from the real object onto someone or something else, such as kicking the dog when angry with the boss. TABLE 8.1 A Hierarchy of Types of Defense Mechanisms (Least Mature to Most Mature) Source: Based on Perry and Henry (2004) and Vaillant (1977). Obsessive defense mechanisms also are very common and consist of mental patterns like isolation of affect or intellectualization. Isolation of affect involves the superficial Type Description and Examples Psyc hotic Gross denial of external reality such as frank delusions; includes denial and distortion Acti ng Out Maladaptive behaviors such as impulsive actions; includes passive-aggressiveness Bord erlin e Splitting the image of others into good and bad; includes splitting and schizoid fantasy Neur otic Mechanisms that involve minor reality distortion; includes repression and displacement Obse ssive Somewhat adaptive mechanisms; includes isolation of affect and intellectualization Matu re Mature forms of defense with minor reality distortion; includes humor and sublimation acknowledgement of a feeling in the absence of a full emotional experience. In intellectualization, threatening matters are acknowledged but explored in bland terms that are relatively devoid of feelings. For example, Vaillant (1971) describes a physician whose mother had died recently of cancer. The doctor talked at length about the medical characteristics of her illness, thereby easing his sense of loss. Mature defense mechanisms appear to the beholder as convenient virtues. An example is certain forms of humor that do not distort reality but that can ease the burden of matters “too terrible to be borne” (Vaillant, 1977). Specific kinds of mature mechanisms include: • Altruism: Vicarious but constructive and gratifying service to others. • Humor: Playful acknowledgment of ideas and feelings without discomfort and without unpleasant effects on others; does not include sarcasm. • Suppression: Conscious or semiconscious decision to postpone paying attention to a conscious conflict or impulse. • Anticipation: Realistic anticipation of or planning for future inner discomfort; for example, realistic anticipation of surgery or separation. • Sublimation: Indirect expression of instinctual wishes without adverse consequences or loss of pleasure; for example, channeling aggression into sports. An example of humor as a mature defense mechanism would be former president Ronald Reagan’s quip to doctors in 1981 as he entered surgery for a bullet wound from his attempted assassination. He is reported to have said, “I hope you’re all Republicans.” Perry and colleagues developed the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS) as a basis for assessing the level, type, and severity of defense mechanisms encountered in psychotherapy patients (Perry, 1990; Perry & Harris, 2004). The DMRS was devised for rating the presence of 30 discrete defense mechanisms (e.g., acting out, splitting, denial, projection, repression, intellectualization, altruism, etc.) in a 50-minute dynamically oriented interview. In the original scale, a 3- point qualitative rating of absent, probably present, or definitely present was obtained for each defense mechanism identified in a review of a videotaped session. Subsequently, the test developers adopted a simple quantitative scoring approach in which defense mechanisms were isolated and identified in short, meaningful segments of the taped interview. They found that a typical therapy session includes anywhere from 15 to 75 illustrations of the various defense mechanisms. Based on prior research, each defense mechanism receives a score from 1 (highly immature and maladaptive) to 7 (highly mature and adaptive). Although the scale offers a number of scoring options, the most useful score is the Overall Defensive Functioning (ODF) score, which is the simple average of the ratings of the observed defense mechanisms. The theoretical range of scores is 1.0 to 7.0, although scores of 3.0 and below are rare. Scores below 5.0 indicate significant personality disorder or severe depression. Scores of 6.0 and higher indicate normal or healthy functioning. Interrater reliabilities from six studies were mostly in the mid- to high-.80s for the ODF scores. The stability coefficient for a small sample of patients over a one-month interval was a respectable .75 (Perry & Harris, 2004). The ODF scores tend to improve over the course of dynamically oriented therapy, which supports the validity of the construct being measured, maturity of defense mechanisms. In four studies involving one-month to one-year follow-up with small samples, the within-group effect sizes for gains in ODF scores ranged from .02 to 1.05, with most in the range of .41 to .82 (Perry Harris, 2004, Table 9.5). Effect sizes of this magnitude are considered moderate to large, that is, meaningful gains are being accomplished, as registered by the increased maturity of the defense mechanisms emerging in the therapy sessions. The authors observe: Defenses can be viewed as both process phenomena (psychological mechanisms in action) and as a measure of adaptive outcome, when aggregated across sessions and time. This gives the study of defenses great potential clinical relevance. To develop and test predictive hypotheses about treatment will make the study of defense very relevant to daily clinical work, and both scientifically promising and exciting (Perry & Harris, 2004, p. 190). The meaningful assessment of defense mechanisms largely has eluded clinical researchers, but instruments like the DMRS show promise of making key elements of psychoanalytic theory accessible to empirical validation (Perry, Beck, Constantinides, & Foley, 2009). However, this approach does have two drawbacks: The practitioner needs specialized training to identify defense mechanisms, and the process of collecting relevant information from patients is very time- consuming. 8.3 TYPE THEORIES OF PERSONALITY The earliest personality theories attempted to sort individuals into discrete categories or types. For example, the Greek physician Hippocrates (ca. 460–377 B.C.) proposed a humoral theory with four personality types (sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic) that was too simplistic to be useful. In the 1940s, Sheldon and Stevens (1942) proposed a type theory based on the relationship between body build and temperament. Their approach stimulated a flurry of research and then faded into obscurity. Nonetheless, typological theories have continued to capture intermittent interest among personality researchers. We will illustrate type theories by reviewing contemporary research on coronary-prone personality types. Type A Coronary-Prone Behavior Pattern Friedman and Rosenman (1974) investigated the psychological variables that put individuals at higher risk of coronary heart disease. They were the first to identify a Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern, which they described as “an action–emotion complex that can be observed in any person who is aggressively involved in a chronic, incessant struggle to achieve more and more in less and less time, and if required to do so, against the opposing efforts of other things or persons” (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974). At the opposite extreme is the Type B behavior pattern, characterized by an easygoing, non- competitive, relaxed lifestyle. Of course, people vary along a continuum from “pure” Type A to “pure” Type B. Friedman and Ulmer (1984) have provided a detailed description of the full-fledged Type A behavior pattern, and it is not an appealing picture. These individuals display a deep insecurity, regardless of their achievements. They desire to dominate others, and typically are indifferent to the feelings of competitors. They exhibit a free-floating hostility, and easily find things that irritate them. They also suffer from a sense of urgency about getting things done. Type A persons often engage in multitasking, such as reviewing correspondence while making a phone call. Almost beyond belief, one patient confessed to using two electric shavers, one for each hand (Friedman & Ulmer, 1984). In other studies, researchers have found only a weak relationship—or no relationship at all— between Type A behavior and CHD (e.g., Eaker & Castelli, 1988; Smedslund & Rundmo, 1999). In the most comprehensive review of its kind, Myrtek (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of 25 prospective studies of Type A behavior and CHD and concluded flatly that “Type A behavior is not an independent risk factor for CHD.” Effect sizes in this review were not just small, they were effectively zero, on the order of .003. It did not matter whether structured interviews or questionnaires were used to assess Type A behavior. Myrtek (2007) also warns that the existence of the concept itself can be dangerous because it provides patients an “external causal attribution” and relieves them of the responsibility for behavior change. The Type A concept also gives false benefit to physicians when they work with CHD patients who lack the usual risk factors (smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise). Blaming Type A behavior is easier than admitting that the causes of CHD sometimes are unknown. Other researchers have found that CHD is linked not so much with the full-blown Type A behavior pattern as with specific components such as being anger-prone (Dembroski, MacDougall, Williams, & Haney, 1985) or possessing time urgency (Wright, 1988). Wielgosz and Nolan (2000) identified hostility, cynicism, and suppression of anger, as well as stress, depression, and social isolation as significant risk factors in Type A behavior. Certainly there continues to be a need to sort out the specific risk factors in this area of investigation. What we do know with certainty is that the simple equation of Type A behavior causes CHD no longer is convincing. Type A behavior can be diagnosed from a short interview consisting of questions about habits of working, talking, eating, reading, and thinking (Friedman, 1996). The more flagrant cases of Type A behavior can also be detected by paper- and-pencil tests (Jackson & Gray, 1987). However, the questionnaire approach is limited because it cannot reveal the facial, vocal, and psychomotor indices of hostility and time urgency that are usually evident in interview (Friedman & Ulmer, 1984). Early studies indicated that persons who exhibited the Type A behavior pattern were at greatly increased risk of coronary disease and heart attack. In one 9-year study of more than 3,000 healthy men, persons with the Type A behavior pattern were 2½times more likely to suffer heart attacks than those with Type B behavior pattern (Friedman & Ulmer, 1984). In fact, not one of the “pure” Type B’s—the extremely relaxed, easygoing, and noncompetitive members of the study—had suffered a heart attack. In the famous Framingham longitudinal study, Type A men ages 55 to 64 were about twice as likely at 10- year follow-up to develop coronary heart disease as Type B men (Haynes, Feinleib, & Eaker, 1983). In this study, the link between Type A behavior and coronary heart disease (CHD) was especially strong for white-collar workers. 8.4 PHENOMENOLOGICAL THEORIES OF PERSONALITY Phenomenological theories of personality emphasize the importance of immediate, personal, subjective experience as a determinant of behavior. Some of the theoretical positions subsumed under this title have been given other labels also, such as humanistic theories, existential theories, construct theories, self- theories, and fulfillment theories (Maddi, 2000). Nonetheless, these approaches share a common focus on the person’s subjective experience, personal world view, and self-concept as the major wellsprings of behavior. Origins of the Phenomenological Approach The orientation briefly reviewed in this section has numerous sources that reach back to turn-of- the-twentieth-century European philosophy and literature. Nonetheless, two persons, one a philosopher and the other a writer, stand out as seminal contributors to the modern phenomenological viewpoint. The German philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) invented a complex philosophy of phenomenology that was concerned with the description of pure mental phenomena. Husserl’s approach was heavily introspective and nearly inscrutable. More approachable was the Danish writer Søren Kierkegaard (1813– 1855), well known for his contributions to existentialism. Existentialism is the literary and philosophical movement concerned with the meaning of life and an individual’s freedom to choose personal goals. The phenomenology of Husserl and the existentialism of Kierkegaard influenced dozens of prominent philosophers and psychologists. Vestiges of these early viewpoints are evident in virtually every contemporary phenomenological personality theory (Maddi, 2000). Carl Rogers, Self-Theory, and the Q- Technique The most influential phenomenological theorist was Carl Rogers (1902–1987). His contributions to personality theory, known as self-theory, are extensive and … CHAPTER 9 Assessment of Normality and Human Strengths TOPIC 9A Assessment Within the Normal Spectrum 9.1 Broad Band Tests of Normal Personality 9.2 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) 9.3 California Psychological Inventory (CPI) 9.4 NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO- PI-R) 9.5 Stability and Change in Personality 9.6 Assessment of Moral Judgment 9.7 Assessment of Spiritual and Religious Concepts In the previous chapter we surveyed tests used by psychologists to evaluate clients for a range of symptoms and life difficulties. These instruments included the mainstays of the profession such as the MMPI-2, MCMI-III, Rorschach, and TAT. Such tests might be referred to as “clinical” in nature, because they are well suited to the needs of clinical practice. But what are practitioners to do if they want to evaluate someone who is reasonably normal? In other words, assessment does not always entail delving into symptoms, distress level, defense mechanisms, diagnosis, and the like. One example might be a young executive who wants to know about “growth edges” in regard to leadership positions. Another example might be a college student who desires self-knowledge as part of vocational explorations. Even though clinical tests such as those surveyed in the previous chapter can be employed within the normal spectrum, they do not excel in this application. In fact, the evaluation of normal personality was not the original purpose of tests such as the MMPI or the Rorschach. For example, the initial objective of the MMPI-2 was the diagnosis of psychopathology, which remains the most dominant and effective application of the instrument. Historically, the purpose of the Rorschach has been described by Frank (1939) and others as providing an “X-ray of the mind” to identify themes hidden away from ordinary observation. Currently, the most common application of the test is with clients who display complex psychological symptoms that do not fit neatly into the categories of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). When a practitioner wants to assess personality within the normal spectrum, tests designed expressly for that purpose typically provide a more helpful perspective than instruments developed from the standpoint of psychopathology. Instead of measuring concepts such as depression, paranoia, anxiety, narcissism, or suicide potential, the focus in these alternative instruments is on qualities pertinent to the normal range of human functioning. We are referring here to features like responsibility, social presence, intuition, locus of control, attachment style, or faith maturity. This chapter investigates an assortment of instruments suitable for assessment within the normal continuum and beyond. Normality differs from abnormality by shades of gray rather than revealing a sharp demarcation (Offer & Sabshin, 1966). Understanding the various definitions of normality would involve a lengthy detour; we do not pursue the topic here. In their comprehensive textbook of psychiatry, Sadock and Sadock (2004) provide an excellent overview. Our goal here is to focus on useful tests and measures, including some that have been neglected because of the emphasis on psychopathology within the field of clinical psychology. In Topic 9A, Assessment Within the Normal Spectrum, we explore the qualities of several tests and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. We feature a few widely used scales in this topic, including the venerable Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), one of the most widely employed personality tests of all time, and the California Psychological Inventory (Gough & Bradley, 1996), a measure with strong empirical roots. In addition to their value in the assessment of client personality, tests also contribute to our understanding of both typical and atypical trajectories of personality across the life span. For this reason, we follow a key research issue in personality psychology, namely, whether personality remains stable or tends to shift in specific directions with age. We close the topic with an evaluation of tools for assessing spiritual and religious constructs. Other forms of assessment pertinent to the normal spectrum of adult functioning also are covered in Topic 9A. We are referring here to the evaluation of spiritual, religious, and moral constructs. These specialized forms of assessment have received an increasing amount of attention in recent years. In Topic 9B, Positive Psychological Assessment, we examine a number of relatively new scales that have emerged in response to a reawakening of interest in human potential, an interest that has remained largely dormant in psychology since the early 1900s (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). A special focus in this topic is the assessment of creativity. 9.1 BROAD BAND TESTS OF NORMAL PERSONALITY A broad band test is one that measures the full range of functioning, as opposed to limited aspects. Beginning in the 1940s, researchers sought to capture the nuances of normal personality by developing broad-band self- report instruments. The sheer variety of approaches to this task is a testament to the complexity of human functioning. An enduring question, related to the previous topic on theories of personality, is how best to conceptualize the multi-faceted notion of personality. For example, is personality best construed as a limited number of types, with most people resembling one type or another with reasonable precision? Or, is personality best interpreted as several dimensions, with each unique individual revealing a specific level of each dimension? If a dimensional approach is preferred, how many dimensions are needed to describe the array of human responses: 5, 16, 20 —or more? There are no definitive answers to these questions, although dimensional approaches generally have prevailed over typological methods in the history of test development. Even so, useful and popular typological approaches do exist. In fact, we begin the discussion of broad-band tests with an instrument that flexibly permits both a typological and a dimensional approach to the understanding of normal personality. 9.2 MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI) Originally published in 1962, the MBTI is a forced-choice, self-report inventory that attempts to classify persons according to an adaptation of Carl Jung’s theory of personality types (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Tzeng, Ware, & Chen, 1989). As discussed below, recent adaptations of the test also provide dimensional scores in addition to the well-known four-letter typological codes. According to the publisher, the MBTI is the most widely used individual test in history, taken by approximately 2 million people a year. Proponents of the instrument deem it valuable in vocational guidance and organizational consulting. It comes in a number of versions, including Form M, a 93-item test which can be purchased by qualified psychologists in a self- scoring paper-and-pencil format, or administered on-line. Other forms such as the 126-item Form G and the 144-item Form Q are available on-line and must be authorized by a psychologist who has agreed to a licensing arrangement with the publisher, Consulting Psychologists Press (www.cpp.com). Regardless of the version employed, the MBTI is scored on four theoretically independent polarities: Extraversion–Introversion, Sensing– iNtuition, Thinking–Feeling, and Judging– Perceiving. The test-taker is categorized on one side or the other of each polarity, which results in a four-letter code such as ENTJ (Extraversion, iNtuition, Thinking, Judging). Because there are two poles to each of the four http://www.cpp.com/ dimensions, this allows for 24 or 16 different personality types. Each of the 16 types has been studied extensively over the years. The four polarities (E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P) do not necessarily correspond to common understandings of the anchor terms and hence require some explanation. It is also important to note that the concepts are intended to be value- neutral and merely descriptive. Thus, it is neither better nor worse to manifest Extraversion or Introversion. Likewise, Thinking and Feeling are simply different modalities and one is not better than the other, and so forth. The opposite ends of each polarity are simply different modes of being that may have a variety of implications for relationships, vocation, leadership, and personal functioning. Possessing the qualities of one polarity or the other may be advantageous (or not) in different situations. Extraversion–Introversion is probably the easiest to describe. An extravert (E) directs energy outward to people and conversations, whereas an introvert (I) directs energy inward to his or her inner world. A note of clarification: The MBTI retains the original spelling of Extraversion, preferred by Jung, instead of using the synonymous concept of Extroversion, preferred by contemporary psychologists. Sensing–iNtuition involves two opposite ways of perceiving. Those who prefer sensing (S) rely on the immediate senses, whereas those who prefer intuition (N) rely upon “relationships and/ or possibilities that have been worked out beyond the reach of the conscious mind” (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Of course, the letter N is used to designate intuition because the letter I already is taken to label Introversion. Thinking– Feeling refers to basing conclusions on thinking (T), that is, logic and objectivity, as opposed to feeling (F), which involves a reliance on personal values and social harmony. Finally, Judging–Perceiving indicates a preference for decisiveness and closure (J) or an open-ended flexibility and spontaneity (P). Whereas in common parlance the notion of “judging” often has a negative connotation, this is not the case when the term is applied to this polarity of the MBTI. The 16 possible four-letter types are not equally represented in the general population, and some types are more common in specific occupational groups. For example, in a sample of 231 education graduate students from a Midwestern university, the ENFP type was by far the most common (N = 43), followed by ENFJ (N = 28) in frequency. Codes beginning with the letter E (Extraversion) constituted nearly two-thirds of this sample, which highlights the importance of Extraversion in the field of education. Paraphrasing from Myers and McCaulley (1985, p. 78), the work expectations for someone who embodies the ENFP type are as follows: • prefers to work interactively with a succession of people away from the desk • likes to work with a succession of new problems to be solved • prefers to provide service that is appreciated • likes to work in changing situations that require adaptation These qualities align well with the role expectations for people heading into the field of education. Standardization data for the MBTI is extensive and based on large samples collected over many decades (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). One particularly useful table is a list of occupations empirically attractive to the sixteen types. For example, 18 percent of attorneys are INTJ in type, whereas only 2 percent of elementary school teachers fit this code. This is useful information for clients who take the test in search of personal or career guidance. Split-half reliabilities for the four scales are in the .80s for the combined subject pool of nearly 56,000 participants. Test–retest reliabilities for the four scales are somewhat lower and depend on the interval between tests. When the interval is short, on the order of a few weeks, results are strong, with coefficients mainly in the .70s and higher. Yet, when the interval is longer, on the order of several years, the coefficients are predictably lower, in the .40s and .50s. With regard to reliability, an important question with the MBTI is the stability of the four letter code from test to retest. The test manual reports on a dozen studies of code type stability, with retest intervals ranging from 5 weeks to 5 years (most intervals a year or two). On average, about 41 percent of examinees retained their identical code type, that is, all four letters of the code remained the same from test to retest. About 38 percent of examinees remained stable on three of the four letters, that is, one letter changed for them. About 17 percent of examinees retained two of their four letters, but switched on the other two. And, 3 percent retained only one letter, switching on the other three. Overall, these are impressive results as to the long-term stability of the MBTI code types. In a review of 17 studies reporting reliability coefficients, Capraro and Capraro (2002) found respectably strong reliability coefficients of .84 (E-I), .84 (S-N), .67 (T-F), and .82 (J-P). Salter, Forney, and Evans (2005) conducted an especially rigorous evaluation of MBTI reliability, looking at the stability of MBTI categories across three administrations with 231 graduate students in education. The three administrations were at the beginning of the first year, beginning of the second year, and end of the second year. Their report included extensive analyses, but of interest here is the percentage of respondents who received the same classification (e.g., Extraversion or Introversion) on all three occasions. The percentage who displayed complete consistency for each dimension was as follows: Given the stringency of the reliability approach (agreement across three administrations), these are respectable findings. More than 400 references citing the MBTI were found in PsychINFO from 2000 to 2009, many pertaining to the validity of the instrument. For example, in a study of 177 managers, Higgs (2001) reported a significant relationship between emotional intelligence and the dominant MBTI function of iNtuition. • E-I 67% • S-N 66% • T-F 69% • J-P 71% Emotional intelligence is monitoring emotions of self and others and using this information to guide thinking and actions (Mayer & Salovey, 1993). A positive relationship with MBTI iNtuition is strong support for the validity of this dimension. Another recent study also provides support for the validity of the polarities assessed by the MBTI. Furnham, Moutafi, and Crump (2003) tested 900 adults with two instruments: the MBTI and the Revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-PI-R is a well validated measure of personality that evaluates five factors of personality known as the “big five.” These factors are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness (to experience), Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. As predicted by the authors, the MBTI dimensions revealed healthy and appropriate correlations with corresponding factors from the NEO-PI-R. Specifically, the following averaged concurrent validity correlations were found between the MBTI dimensions and the NEO-PI-R scales: E-I correlated .71 with Extraversion; S-N correlated −.65 with Openness; T-F correlated −.35 with Agreeableness; and, J-P correlated .46 with Conscientiousness. The negative correlations indicate an inverse relationship, that is, those categorized as S (Sensing) on the MBTI obtained low scores on Openness, whereas those categorized as N (iNtuition) obtained high scores on Openness. In like manner a T or Thinking type tended to obtain low scores on Agreeableness whereas an F or Feeling type tended to obtain high scores. All of these correlations are consistent with theoretical understandings of the MBTI and hence buttress the validity of the instrument. As mentioned, recent versions of the MBTI yield additional information beyond the four- letter typological classification. For example, the 144-item form Q, available on-line, provides a highly detailed and sophisticated summary report that partitions each of the four polarities into five facet scores. Hence the report includes a total of 20 facet scores in addition to the four- letter code. For example, the Thinking-Feeling dimension includes bipolar facets such as Logical-Empathetic, Reasonable- Compassionate, and Tough-Tender. The dimensions and facets of this version of the MBTI are displayed in Table 9.1. The report includes not only the typological classifications (e.g., T or F) but also a rating for each bipolar facet on an 11-point continuum. This kind of nuanced dimensional information appeals to many users. TABLE 9.1 Dimensions and Facets of the MBTI, Form Q Extraversion (E) (I) Introversion Initiating Receiving Expressive Contained Gregarious Intimate Active Reflective Enthusiastic Quiet Sensing (S) (N) Intuition Concrete Abstract Realistic Imaginative Practical Conceptual Experiential Theoretical Traditional Original One concern about the MBTI is that the increasing cost of administering the instrument —in the range of $10 to $30 per individual— provides a disincentive for outside researchers who want to conduct reliability or validity studies. This is an issue not only for the MBTI but also for the most widely used contemporary tests. Understandably, test publishers want to profit from their massive and expensive efforts at test development. But the downside is that scholarly researchers need substantial funding if they desire to administer newer versions of the Thinking (T) (F) Feeling Logical Empathetic Reasonable Compassionate Questioning Accommodating Critical Accepting Tough Tender Judging (J) (P) Perceiving Systematic Casual Planful Open-Ended Early Starting Pressure-Prompted Scheduled Spontaneous Methodical Emergent MBTI to large samples of examinees. Partly in reaction to the paucity of independent research on newer versions of this test, reviewers continue to suggest caution in its use, especially when making simplistic inferences from the four-letter type formulas (Pittenger, 2005). 9.3 CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY (CPI) Originally published in 1957, the CPI is a true– false test designed expressly to measure the dimensions of normal personality (Gough & Bradley, 1996; McAllister, 1988). The instrument is available in two forms, the CPI-434 (Gough, 1995) and the CPI-260 (www.skillsone.com), which is available only online. The component scales and the interpretive strategies are nearly identical for the two versions, which differ mainly in the number of items—434 versus 260. Psychometric properties of both versions are similar and strong. Because of its ease of administration and http://www.skillsone.com/ the immediacy with which the practitioner receives an extensive computer-generated report, the CPI-260 rapidly is gaining favor among psychological practitioners. The CPI-260 is scored for 20 folk measures of personality, 7 work-related scales, and 3 broad vectors. The purpose of the test is to provide a clear picture of the examinee by using descriptors based on the ordinary language of everyday life (Gough & Bradley, 1996). Three of the basic personality scales also provide information on test-taking attitudes and therefore function as validity scales. These scales are Good Impression (Gi), which assesses the extent to which the individual presents a favorable image to others; Communality (Cm), which measures unusual responses that might arise from carelessness or faking bad; and Well- being (Wb), which gauges the portrayal of serious emotional problems. TABLE 9.2 Brief Description of Standard and Work-Related CPI-260 Scales Standard Scales Common Interpretation of High Score D o Dominance dominant, persistent, good leadership ability C s Capacity for Status personal qualities that underlie and lead to status S y Sociability outgoing, sociable, participative temperament S p Social Presence poise, spontaneity, and self- confidence in social situations S a Self- acceptance self-acceptance and sense of personal worth I n Independen ce high sense of personal independence, not easily influenced E m Empathy good capacity to empathize with other persons R e Responsibili ty conscientious, responsible, and dependable S o Social Conformity strong social maturity and high integrity S c Self-control good self-control, freedom from impulsivity and self- centeredness G i Good Impression concerned about creating a good impression C m Communalit y valid and thoughtful response pattern W b Sense of Well-being not worrying or complaining, free from self doubt T o Tolerance permissive, accepting, and nonjudgmental social beliefs A c Achieveme nt via Conformanc e achieves well in settings where conformance is necessary A i Achieveme nt via Independen ce achieves well in settings where independence is necessary C f Conceptual fluency high degree of personal and intellectual efficiency Is Insightfulne ss interested in and responsive to the inner needs, motives, and experiences of others F x Flexibility flexible and adaptable in thought and social behavior Source: Based on Gough, H. G. and Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Also, Megargee, E. (1972). The S n Sensitivity sensitive to others’ feelings, personally vulnerable Work- Related Scales Common Interpretation of High Score M p Managerial Potential good judgment, effective at dealing with people W o Work Orientation strong work ethic, rarely complains about work C t Creative Temperame nt creative thinker who prefers what is new or different L p Leadership strong leadership skills, deals well with stress A m i Amicability collegial and cooperative, a good team player L e o Law Enforcemen t Orientation practical, well suited to work in law enforcement California Psychological Inventory handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; and McAllister, L. (1988). A practical guide to CPI interpretation. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. The 20 folk measures and 7 work-related scales are listed and briefly described in Table 9.2. These scales are reported as T-scores normed to a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 in the general population. The test developers used an empirical methodology of criterion-keying to develop the majority of the scales. Specifically, extreme groups of participants (mainly college students) were formed on such scale-relevant criteria as school grades, sociability, and participation in curricular activities. Item- endorsement frequencies were then contrasted to ferret out the best statements for each scale. For example, the Sociability (Sy) scale was constructed by contrasting item-endorsement rates for persons reporting a large number of social activities versus those reporting few or no social activities. In constructing four of the folk scales, the authors used a rational basis backed up by indices of internal consistency. Reflecting the care with which the scales were constructed, reliability data for the CPI are respectable. Most alpha coefficients are in the .70s and .80s, with a median value of .76. The test–retest reliability coefficients tend to be somewhat lower, with a median retest correlation of .68. The authors provide a wealth of normative data, including average test scores for 52 samples of males and 42 samples of females, subdivided by education, occupation, college major, gender, and other variables. The basic normative sample consists of 3,000 males and 3,000 females of varying age, social class, and geographic region (Gough & Bradley, 1996). In addition to the wealth of information provided by the individual scale scores, the CPI also is scored on three broad dimensions or vectors derived from decades of factor-analytic studies with the instrument. The three vectors include two basic orientations and a third theme reflecting ego integration. The first basic orientation called vector 1 or v.1 has two polarities: toward people or toward one’s inner life. This vector is similar to the extraversion– introversion dimension found in nearly every personality theory ever proposed. The second basic orientation or v.2 also has two polarities: rule-favoring or rule-questioning. This vector reflects a conventional–unconventional dimension also found in many studies. These first two bipolar orientations, v.1 and v.2, provide a 2 × 2 typology of four lifestyles termed the Implementer, Supporter, Innovator, and Visualizer lifestyles, described below. The third vector or v.3 assesses a 7-point continuum variously referred to as self-realization, psychological competence, or ego integration. In the client feedback report provided by the publisher, v.3 is referred to as Level of Satisfaction and scored 1 (low) to 7 (high). This vector acts as a moderator for each of the lifestyles, with high scores on v.3 leading to a positive expression and low scores leading to a negative expression. Results from several correlational studies confirm distinctive psychological portraits for the four lifestyles mentioned above (Gough & Bradley, 1996). Briefly, the four life styles are as follows: • Implementers (extroverted and rule- favoring) tend to do well in managerial and leadership roles. • Supporters (introverted and rule-favoring) function well in supportive or ancillary positions. • Innovators (extroverted and rule- questioning) are adept at creating change. • Visualizers (introverted and rule- questioning) work best alone in fields such as art or literature. The CPI Manual provides a wealth of information about each lifestyle, including adjective correlates obtained from spouses, peers, and professional evaluators. From these empirical sources, a clear portrait of each lifestyle emerges. For example, the summary statement for Innovators is as follows: Gammas attend to and seek the monetary, prestige, and other rewards offered by society, but are often at odds with the culture concerning the criteria by which these rewards are apportioned. Their values are personal and individual, not traditional or conventional. Gammas [Innovators] are the doubters, the skeptics, those who see and resist the arbitrary and unjustified features of the status quo. At their best, they are innovative and insightful creators of new ideas, new products, and new social forms. At their worst, they are rebellious, intolerant, self-indulgent, and disruptive; and at low levels on the v.3 scale, they often behave in wayward, rule-violating, and narcissistic ways. (Gough & Bradley, 1996, p. 50) The reader will notice that the third vector, v.3, moderates the expression of the Implementer lifestyle, for better or for worse. When v.3 is high, the Implementer is innovative and insightful. When v.3 is low, the Implementer is wayward and narcissistic. A similar pattern holds true for the other three lifestyles—each can have a positive or negative expression, depending on the level of personal integration reflected on the v.3 scale. The CPI is heir to a long history of empirical research that substantiates a number of real- world correlates for distinctive test profiles. Due to space limitations, we can only list several prominent areas in which the value of the test has been empirically confirmed. The CPI is useful for helping predict the following: • Psychological and physical health • High school and college achievement • Effectiveness of student-teachers • Effectiveness of police and military personnel • Leadership and management success The CPI is particularly effective at identifying adolescents or adults who follow a delinquent or criminal lifestyle. For example, Gough and Bradley (1992) studied a sample of 672 delinquent or criminal men and women, contrasting their CPI scale scores with a large sample of controls. Of the 27 scales evaluated, they found significant mean differences on 25 for men and 26 for women. The most discriminating scale was Social Conformity (So), which revealed healthy point-biserial correlations of .54 for men and .58 for women. They also found that low scores on v.3 (a measure of ego integration) were associated with greater incidence of delinquency. The reader can find further details on the real-world empirical correlates of CPI profiles in Groth- Marnat (2003) and Hargrave and Hiatt (1989). 9.4 NEO PERSONALITY INVENTORY-REVISED (NEO PI-R) The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PIR) embodies decades of factor-analytic research with clinical and normal adult populations (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The test is based upon the five-factor model of personality described in the previous chapter. It is available in two parallel forms consisting of 240 items rated on a five-point dimension. An additional three items are used to check validity. A shorter version, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO- FFI) is also available (Costa & McCrae, 1989). We limit our discussion to the NEO PI-R. Form S is for self-reports whereas Form R is for outside observers (e.g., the spouse of a … References for articles attached Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing Personality Assessment Terminology: Time to Retire “Objective” and “Projective” As Personality Test Descriptors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 223–225. https://doi- org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_01 Stedman, J. M., Essery, J., & McGeary, C. A. (2018). Projective Personality Assessment: Evidence for a Decline in Training Emphasis. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 25(1), 54–59. Santacreu, J., Rubio, V. J., & Hernández, J.,M. (2006). The objective assessment of personality: Cattells's T-data revisited and more1. Psychology Science, 48(1), 53-68. Retrieved from https://www-proquest-com.proxy- library.ashford.edu/scholarly-journals/objective-assessment-personality- cattellss-t-data/docview/212203756/se-2?accountid=32521 Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Chapter 8: Origins of Personality Testing. Chapter 9: Assessment of Normality and Human Strengths https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_01 https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_01 https://www-proquest-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/scholarly-journals/objective-assessment-personality-cattellss-t-data/docview/212203756/se-2?accountid=32521 https://www-proquest-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/scholarly-journals/objective-assessment-personality-cattellss-t-data/docview/212203756/se-2?accountid=32521 https://www-proquest-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/scholarly-journals/objective-assessment-personality-cattellss-t-data/docview/212203756/se-2?accountid=32521 https://ashford.instructure.com/courses/91303/external_tools/retrieve?display=borderless&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.ashford.edu%2Flti%3Fbookcode%3DGregory.8055.17.1 https://ashford.instructure.com/courses/91303/external_tools/retrieve?display=borderless&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.ashford.edu%2Flti%3Fbookcode%3DGregory.8055.17.1 GUIDELINES EDITORIAL MEYER AND KURTZADVANCING ASSESSMENT TERMINOLOGY Advancing Personality Assessment Terminology: Time to Retire “Objective” and “Projective” As Personality Test Descriptors Gregory J. Meyer Department of Psychology University of Toledo John E. Kurtz Department of Psychology Villanova University For decades psychologists have classified personality tests dichotomously as objective or projective. These terms appear in scientific articles and textbooks and have become so en- trenched that it is common to see separate courses in graduate clinical programs using these labels in course titles (e.g., “Objective Assessment,” “Projectives”). In the interest of ad- vancing the science of personality assessment, we believe it is time to end this historical practice and retire these terms from our formal lexicon and general discourse describing the methods of personality assessment. For personality tests, the term objective typically refers to instruments in which the stimulus is an adjective, proposi- tion, or question that is presented to a person who is required to indicate how accurately it describes his or her personality using a limited set of externally provided response options (true vs. false, yes vs. no, Likert scale, etc.). What is objective about such a procedure is that the psychologist administering the test does not need to rely on judgment to classify or inter- pret the test-taker’s response; the intended response is clearly indicated and scored according to a pre-existing key. As a re- sult, however, the necessity for judgment is passed on to the test taker. She must interpret the question, consider her per- sonal characteristics, evaluate herself relative to others as best she can, decide the extent to which the characteristic fits her personality, and then choose whether to honestly convey this information in her response. On the other hand, the term projective typically refers to instruments in which the stimulus is a task or activity that is presented to a person who is required to generate a response with minimal external guidance or constraints imposed on the nature of that response. What is projective in a test like this is the requirement to generate a response in the face of ambiguity; in so doing, the person projects or puts forward elements of her personal characteristics. Unfortunately, the terms objective and projective carry multiple, often unclear, meanings, including some connota- tions that are very misleading when applied to personality as- sessment instruments and methods. For instance, the term objective implies accuracy and precision that is impervious to biasing influences. These are desirable and positive con- notations. One problem is that these positive connotations are not fully warranted for the inventories to which they typi- cally refer. Scoring errors are certainly one potential concern (e.g., Allard & Faust, 2000). More substantively, however, if the kind of self-report scales that are classified as objective actually were “objective” in a meaningful sense of that word, then there would not be such a huge literature examining the various response styles and biases that affect scores derived from these instruments. In fact, the literature addressing the topic of response styles, malingering, and test bias in these measures appears larger than the literature on any other fo- cused issue concerning their validity or application. Beyond bias and frank distortion, Meehl (1945) pointed out more than half a century ago that the processes influencing a test- taker’s response include ambiguity inherent in the test items, limitations in self-knowledge or self-perception, personal dynamics, and even projections. Another serious issue that results from applying the term objective to certain personal- ity instruments is that those so labeled will tend to be viewed positively simply by virtue of the term’s positive connota- tions. Tests that are not so categorized will tend to be viewed less positively, regardless of psychometric data, because they are, after all, not objective. Accordingly, an unintended con- sequence of this terminology is that it may encourage or per- JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 87(3), 223–225 Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. petuate prejudices regarding the many alternative methods of assessment that do not carry the objective label. At the same time, the connotations of the term projective also do not always apply when considering the instruments typically classified as projective. For instance, responses to the Rorschach inkblots often have more to do with stimulus classification and problem solving styles than to projection in a classical Freudian sense of the term, where undesirable personal feelings or impulses are seen as residing outside the self (see Exner, 1989). Similar difficulties emerge when con- sidering the expanded definition of the term projective as Frank (1939) first defined it in reference to types of personal- ity tests. Frank considered a projective test one that would induce the individual to reveal his way of organizing experi- ence by giving him a field (objects, materials, experiences) with relatively little structure and cultural patterning so that the personality can project upon that plastic field his way of seeing life, his meanings, significances, patterns, and espe- cially his feelings. Thus we elicit a projection of the individ- ual personality’s private world because he has to organize the field, interpret the material and react affectively to it. … The important and determining process is the subject’s personal- ity which operates upon the stimulus-situation as if it had a wholly private significance for him alone or an entirely plas- tic character which made it yield to the subject’s control. (italics in the original; pp. 402–403) This conceptualization of a projective test implies that stimulus features or task requirements are essentially imma- terial; personality characteristics will shine through with force and clarity regardless of the medium. Although desir- able, this view is clearly incorrect. For instance, it is well documented that the largest source of variability in Ror- schach scores is the number and complexity of responses given (e.g., Meyer, 1993, 1997). The personality characteris- tics associated with this style of responding are interpretively quite important in their own right. However, the presence of this response complexity confounds efforts to interpret the test scores that psychologists are most interested in interpret- ing (e.g., Exner, 2003).1 The situation is similar with the- matic storytelling techniques, in which the number of words given and the specific stimulus pictures selected for use exert a powerful influence on the final scores obtained (e.g., Blankenship et al., 2006; Hibbard et al., 1994; Pang & Schultheiss, 2005). Thus, the old and familiar terminology of objective and pro- jective personality tests has misleading connotations that will not serve the field well as we seek to have a more differentiated understanding of assessment methods. A relevant question then becomes: What is better alternative terminology? It is fairly easy to identify reasonable alternatives to sup- plant the term objective. Almost exclusively, this term has been applied to structured questionnaires that are completed by the target person him or herself. Consequently, a reason- able alternative is to refer to these tests as “self-report inven- tories” or “patient-rated questionnaires.” Moreover, to advance the science of assessment, it is equally important to differentiate self-report inventories from inventories com- pleted by knowledgeable informants. Given that sources of information in personality assessment are far from inter- changeable (e.g., Achenbach, Krukowski, Dumenci, & Ivanova, 2005; Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987; Costa & McCrae, 1992; De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; Kraemer, Measelle, Ablow, Essex, Boyce, & Kupfer, 2003; Meyer, 2002; Meyer et al., 2001), it would be optimal to fur- ther differentiate all questionnaire methods by specifying the type of informant providing judgments. Thus, peer ratings would be labeled as such and differentiated from spouse- report scales, parent-rated questionnaires, and so forth. It is not as easy to identify a single term or phrase that could supplant the term projective. In fact, when discussing this is- sue with colleagues, disagreements about a suitable substitute appear to be one of the greatest obstacles to change. No single term seems fully adequate. The instruments that are typically subsumed under the projective label include the Rorschach (1921/1942) and other inkblot tests (e.g., Holtzman, Thorpe, Swartz, & Herron, 1961), Murray’s (1943) Thematic Apperception Test and the subsequently developed Picture Story Exercise stimuli (e.g., Smith, 1992), sentence comple- tion measures, and various figure drawing tasks (e.g., Naglieri & Pfeiffer, 1992). The wide differences among these tasks makes it challenging to find a suitable alternative term that ac- commodates all of their diverse features. Some possibilities include “performance tasks,” “behavioral tasks,” “construc- tive methods,” “free response measures,” “expressive person- ality tests,” “implicit methods,” or even “attributive tests.” It is unlikely that any one of these labels would satisfy all experts. However, it is the very difficulty of finding a suitable alterna- tive that speaks to the inadvisability of using a global term to characterize the essence of all these measures. In turn, this highlights the need to drop the term projective from the assess- ment method lexicon. One of the initial steps to advance the scientific understand- ing of any phenomenon is to name and classify its components in a meaningful way. The unsuitable and primitive nature of the term projective is revealed when trying to arrive at an um- brella label to characterize tasks as diverse as drawing one’s family, telling stories in response to pictures, and stating what an inkblot looks like. Applying a global and undifferentiated term to such a diverse array of assessment tasks seems akin to physicians classifying medical tests as either “visual tests” or “nonvisual tests,” with the visual category including tasks ranging from observing reflexes to endoscopy to MRI, and the nonvisual category including tasks ranging from palpation 224 MEYER AND KURTZ 1The confounding influence of this so called “first factor” vari- ance is pervasive with other instruments as well. An excellent dis- cussion of the problem and of a sophisticated effort to mitigate its in- fluence on the MMPI–2 can be found in the recently published Special Issue of the Journal of Personality Assessment (Meyer, 2006) dealing with the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical Scales (Tellegen et al., 2003). methods (e.g., abdominal tenderness) to olfactory methods (e.g., odors indicative of infection) to auditory methods (e.g., detecting wheezes with a stethoscope). Just as it would be regressive to apply such a simplistic cate- gorization to medical tests, the field of personality assessment will not advance by relying on crude terminology to globally characterize all the tasks that are not self-report questionnaires or informant rating scales. Thus, if one of the substitute terms noted above does not seem suitable to replace projective, it would be most optimal for clinicians, researchers, and teach- ers to simply refer to assessment tasks by their specific name, for example, the Rorschach Inkblot Method, Holtzman Ink- blot Task, Murray’s TAT, Loevinger’s SCT. The Journal of Personality Assessment will facilitate the transition to more adequately differentiated assessment terminology by asking authors to avoid referring to categories of personality tests as objective or projective. We hope other assessment journals will join this effort and adopt a similar position. This editorial guideline is not meant to imply that the words objective and projective cannot be used in the context of refer- ring to specific data from personality instruments. It is cer- tainly true that all personality tests can provide more or less objective data. It is also the case that instruments like the Ror- schach or TAT can capture projected personality characteris- tics, whether defined narrowly as by Freud or more broadly as by Frank, and this can also occur when patients complete self- report inventories (Meehl, 1945). There is no problem if au- thors carefully and deliberately choose these terms to further scientific communication (e.g., when one is describing as- pects of inkblot responses that are truly believed to indicate projected dynamics). Rather, our objection is with the reflex- ive use of historically ingrained terms that poorly describe the complex and distinctive methods used to assess personality. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our thoughts on this topic have benefited from helpful and insightful input from many people. Those who commented on this document included Robert Bornstein, Anita Boss, Virginia Brabender, Philip Caracena, Robert Erard, Barton Evans, Leonard Handler, Radhika Krishnamurthy, Robert McGrath, Joni Mihura, David Nichols, Bruce Smith, Donald Viglione, Irving Weiner, and Jed Yalof. REFERENCES Achenbach, T. M., Krukowski, R. A., Dumenci, L., & Ivanova, M. Y. (2005). Assessment of adult psychopathology: Meta-analyses and implications of cross-informant correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 361–382. Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adoles- cent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232. Allard, G., & Faust, D. (2000). Errors in scoring objective personality tests. Assessment, 7, 119–129. Blankenship, V., Vega, C. M., Ramos, E., Romero, K., Warren, K., Keenan, K., et al. (2006). Using the multifaceted Rasch model to improve the TAT/PSE measure of need for achievement. Journal of Personality As- sessment, 86, 100–114. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2005). Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: A critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study. Psychological Bulle- tin, 131, 483–509. Exner, J. E. (1989). Searching for projection in the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 520–536. Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Frank, L. K. (1939). Projective methods for the study of personality. Journal of Psychology, 8, 389–413. Hibbard, S., Farmer, L., Wells, C., Difillipo, E., Barry, W., Korman, R., & Sloan, P. (1994). Validation of Cramer’s Defense Mechanism Manual for the TAT. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 197–210. Holtzman, W. H., Thorpe, J. S., Swartz, J. D., & Herron, E. W. (1961). Ink- blot perception and personality. Austin: University of Texas. Kraemer, H. C., Measelle, J. R., Ablow, J. C., Essex, M. J., Boyce, W. T., & Kupfer, D. J. (2003). A new approach to integrating data from multiple infor- mants in psychiatric assessment and research: Mixing and matching contexts and perspectives. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1566–1577. Meehl, P. E. (1945). The dynamics of “structured” personality tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 296–303 Meyer, G. J. (1993). The impact of response frequency on the Rorschach constellation indices and on their validity with diagnostic and MMPI–2 criteria. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 153–180. Meyer, G. J. (1997). On the integration of personality assessment methods: The Rorschach and MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 297–330. Meyer, G. J. (2002). Implications of information-gathering methods for a re- fined taxonomy of psychopathology. In L. E. Beutler & M. Malik (Eds.), Rethinking the DSM: Psychological perspectives (pp. 69–105). Washing- ton, DC: American Psychological Association. Meyer, G. J. (Ed.). (2006). The MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical Scales [Spe- cial Issue]. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(2). Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A re- view of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165. Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Naglieri, J. A., & Pfeiffer, S. I. (1992). Validity of the Draw A Person: Screening Procedure For Emotional Disturbance with a socially- emotionally disturbed sample. Psychological Assessment, 4, 156–159. Pang, J. S., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2005). Assessing implicit motives in U.S. col- lege students: Effects of picture type and position, gender and ethnicity, and cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 280–294. Rorschach, H. (1942). Psychodiagnostics (5th ed.). Berne, Switzerland: Verlag Hans Huber. (Original work published 1921) Smith, C. P. (Ed.). (1992). Motivation and personality: Handbook of the- matic content analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales: De- velopment, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gregory J. Meyer Department of Psychology Mail Stop 948 University of Toledo 2801 Bancroft Street Toledo, OH 43606 Email: [email protected] ADVANCING ASSESSMENT TERMINOLOGY 225 SIS J. Proj. Psy. &Ment. Health (2018) 25: 54-59 James M. Stedman, PhD, ABPP, Joshua Essery, PhD, ABPP and Cindy A. McGeary, PhD, ABPP, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Texas (Corresponding Author: James M. Stedman, PhD ABPP, Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Health Science Center, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78229 – 7792, Email: [email protected], Phone: 210-567-5488, Fax: 210-567-5677). Keywords: Projective Tests, Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test, Internship Training, Graduate Clinical Training Projective Personality Assessment: Evidence for a Decline in Training Emphasis James M. Stedman, Joshua Essery and Cindy A. McGeary The following paper provides an overview and discussion of past and present trends in training related to projective personality assessment. The authors summarize the historical use of projective testing (particularly the Rorschach) and emerging research examining the use of projectives in both graduate and internship training programs. The current state of the research suggests a decrease in emphasis in training with projective techniques across both graduate and internship training programs. This paper further discusses the University of Texas Health San Antonio clinical psychology internship program as one that continues to value and train interns in projective assessment. The authors end this paper with a brief discussion of the reasons for the decline i n projective assessment across graduate schools and internship sites. Projective personality assessment, in its heyday, centered on a cluster of instruments: the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Thematic Apperception Test, various figure drawing tests, and various versions of the Sentence Completion Test, and post WWII clinical psychology graduate training programs devoted considerable training time to teaching personality assessment with these instruments (see Weiner & Greene. 2008). With the advent of formal internship programs, training with these “projective” instruments extended until completion of the doctoral program. The projective instruments were intertwined with psychoanalytic theory and were thought of as revealing the underlying dynamics, such as conflicts, drives, motives and such. However, the dominant test, the Rorschach, was also seen as having other functions, such as measuring a person‟s reality testing (Beck, 1944) and offering ratios to organize other more psychometric-like features (Klopfer& Davidson. 1962). While the TAT, drawings, and sentence completion instruments remained tied to their projective roots, the Rorschach underwent a major transformation „with the advent of the Exner scoring system (1969) which deemphasized psychoanalytic interpretation and shifted toward a cognitive analysis emphasizing information processing, mediation, and ideation. These data are then organized into a structural summary and interpreted in relation to research findings related to personality characteristics. Exner‟s scoring method was designed to correct criticisms of several scoring methods in use at the time and rather quickly became the method most emphasized in the majority of graduate and internship programs. This tradition in Rorschach assessment has now been supplemented with the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (Meyer et al. 2011). Bram and Yalof (2018) offer a depth analysis of the pros and cons for CS versus R-PAS. This brief (and hopefully mostly accurate) history sets the scene for discussion and review regarding current patterns of projective assessment training at both the graduate school and internship levels. Graduate-level Assessment Training: Piotrowski (2015) has provided a very comprehensive review of the status of graduate school training with the traditional projective techniques. This review highlighted 12 surveys, conducted between 1995 and 2014 on instruction with projective instruments. This analysis identified a Training in Traditional Personality Assessment: 55 precipitous decline in training emphasis with projective assessment. An earlier study by Hilsenroth and Handler (1995), involving 166 graduate students, found that 50% completed two courses with the Rorschach and 32% administered 5 to 9 protocols. A later study by Belter and Piotrowski (2001) surveyed 82 APA-approved clinical doctoral programs and found that 60% required projective training, primarily with the Rorschach and TAT. Nevertheless, 50 % these training directors confirmed a decrease in instruction with projective instruments in the previous five years. Childs and Ende (2002) found similar results in a survey of 84 APA- approved clinical program and reported that 87% of respondents offered a least one course in projective testing, with training emphasizing the Rorschach and TAT. Of special note is a recent study by Ready and Veague (2014) which investigated training in assessment across three training models (Clinical-Science, Scientist- Practitioner, and Practitioner-Scholar). They found that projective tests were rated significantly below “evidence-based” tests, that only Scholar-Practitioner programs tended to offer projective instruction, and that younger faculty was not interested in teaching projective techniques. This study is perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to gather needed information about current projective personality assessment teaching trends but was hampered by low response rates (32%). Nevertheless, it is the most comprehensive study to date and clearly demonstrated a decline in teaching traditional projective instruments. Another rich source of data regarding current assessment training during graduate school is the APPIC Application for Psychology Internship (AAPI). Every year all applicants for internships fill in extensive data regarding their assessment training experience during graduate school, including course work, practica, and write-up/interpretation requirements. To date, two studies have mined this data (Stedman, Hatch, & Schoenfeld, 2001b; Stedman, Hatch, & Schoenfeld, 2002). The earlier study used AAPI forms collected from multiple internship sites for a total of 238 clinical and 96 counseling students, most of whom were from different programs. The dependent variable was “number of test reports written” without reference to particular test. Results indicated that clinical students claimed a median of 18 reports and counseling students reported a median of 11. The second study of the same sample is of more direct relevance because it broke down “number of test reports written” by test. Findings were the following for clinical students and are reported as medians: Rorschach 4.3, TAT 1.5, sentences 2.0, and drawings 1.0. For counseling students, results were Rorschach 2.0, TAT 2.0, sentences 2.0, and drawings 1.3. In summary, Piotrowski‟s review and the studies cited above offer some quantitative analysis of the status of graduate school instruction with the traditional projective techniques. Those studies and others (Piotrowski & Zalewski. 1993; Watkins et al. 1991) appear to show that graduate school teaching of the traditional projective tests declined in the 1990s, declined further during the later 2000s, and declined perhaps precipitously by 2014. However, it should be noted that none of these investigations captured the data needed to make a definitive statement due primarily to the difficulty related to obtaining sufficient samples. Our suggestion is that systematic data collection from APPI forms would be the best way to capture the samples needed to ascertain current testing instruction patterns during graduate school. This would require multisite participation of graduate schools or an arrangement with APPIC to tap into samples of APPI forms or both. Internship Training in Assessment: There are many more studies of clinical instruction during internship training than during graduate school training. These investigations include all aspects relevant to clinical and counseling psychology, including 56: Stedman, Essery McGeary testing, and tend to have better sampling of the population, hence, increased confidence regarding generalization. A review by Stedman (1997) noted that three studies in the 1980s (Durand, Blanchard, & Mindell, 1988; Piotrowski, 1984; Petzel& Berndt, 1980) documented that internship directors valued training with projective instruments but found less support for projective training by the “academic community”. Strong support for training with the Rorschach and TAT was demonstrated in a study by Stedman, Hatch, and Schoenfeld (2000). They asked internship directors to indicate the number of integrated test write-ups, including the Rorschach and TAT, they wanted from applicants. Results varied across internship settings but ranged from 1.0 (Counseling Centers) to 20.0 (Private Psychiatric Hospitals) for the Rorschach. Programs wanted fewer TAT reports but again ranged from 1.0 (Consortia) to 21.0 (Private Psychiatric Hospitals). An additional study by Stedman, Hatch and Schoenfeld (2001a) asked internship directors to rate the importance of pre-internship preparation in test-based assessment and psychotherapy. Although directors rated perpetration on objective testing instruments higher (range across types of sites 5.0 to 3.7 on a 5 point scale), still they rated training in projective assessment at significant levels (4.4 to 2.8, with most sites rating above 3.0). Hence, internships continued to value training with projective instruments. Other studies of internship sites, such as Piotrowski & Belter (1999) and Clemence& Handler (2001), found similar results. There appears to be a gap in direct studies of internship training with projective techniques or methods between the early 2000s and very recently. In fact, Piotrowski asked the first author (Stedman) for an opinion about the status of projective training during internship in 2015, and I speculated that internship training with projectives had indeed declined. Piotrowski‟s question called for an empirical answer and one is now available. Stedman, McGeary, & Essery (in press) surveyed the 733 APPIC internship programs and obtained a 46% response rate (355 programs). These investigators asked internship directors to indicate the following: a) whether they expected personality assessment training during graduate school, b) whether they expected training with specific tests (MMPI, PAI, MCMI, Rorschach, Picture Story, Sentence Completion, Drawings) and their ratings of the importance of that training, and c) their own patterns of training with these instruments (the most important question for our purposes). Results were reported for three categories of internship programs: Adults Only, Child Only, and Mixed Child and Adult. Findings confirmed the speculation that internship programs have severely cut training with the traditional projective instruments. Training with the Rorschach occurs in only 26% of Adult Only, 32% of Child Only, and 33% (Adult rotations) and 35% (Child rotations) of Mixed programs. Training with story techniques (TAT, Roberts, etc.) is as follows: Adult Only 19%, Child Only 39%, Mixed – Child 41%, Adult 29%. Training with Sentence Completion instruments and drawings are even lower, although, as seen above, child programs tend higher. These findings show definitively that rates of training with projective methods have declined to the graduate school levels. In this most recent study, we also tried to ascertain reasons for not providing instruction with these instruments. The response rate for these questions was rather low; however, those responding cited a lack of trained staff, “too labor intensive”, and questionable validity of these types of tests as reasons for not conducting training. UTHSCSA: An Internship Program Continuing to Teach Projective Assessment: One example of an internship program continuing to train and teach projective measures is The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA) which offers an APA accredited pre-doctoral internship program through the Department of Psychiatry. The internship operates from a Training in Traditional Personality Assessment: 57 generalist training model whereby a number of sites in the area offer rotations for interns who also obtain training and learning opportunities at UTHSCA. Whereas the overall internship is generalist in model, UTHSCSA offers three different tracks in order to provide interns more in depth training in a desired area of specialization. The three tracts for the internship are 1) Forensic, 2) Cognitive Behavioral, and 3) Psychodynamic. UTHSCA Forensic and Psychodynamic interns receive exposure to projective measures to differing degrees. Cognitive Behavioral interns do not receive training or seminars on projective tests. For the Forensic Track, interns have the opportunity to administer as well as score projective tests and write interpretive reports under supervision. Forensic Track residents work solely with an adult population. The psychodynamic residents are provided seminars on projective tests, case conferences where projective materials are discussed as well as opportunities to administer, score and provide written interpretation of projective tests under supervision. Psychodynamic residents work with mixed child and adult populations. The most heavily utilized projective test across tracks and populations is the Rorschach. Supervisors have a diversity of training backgrounds with the Rorschach (i.e., Beck, Klopfer, Exner, etc.) but the primary two systems utilized are Exner and R-PAS. Other projective tests used are story telling tests (i.e. TAT and Roberts Apperception Test), sentence completion tests and projective drawings (i.e. House-Tree-Person, Family Kinetic and School Kinetic, etc.). These tests tend to be interpreted qualitatively utilizing a combination of developmental and personality theories to inform interpretation. Interns for the psychodynamic track are taught to administer the Rorschach in a standardized manner utilizing both the Exner and R-PAS systems. Interns are also provided training in the Rapaport method, particularly with younger children or for those who may have a difficult time with the query phase of the Exner or R-PAS approaches, usually due to memory or frustration tolerance. Instruction is provided on the limitations and criticisms of the Rorschach in seminars and interns are taught to administer the test only after deciding if the Rorschach is an appropriate measure for the referral questions being considered. Interns are instructed to be aware of context, age, cultural backgrounds, gender and linguistic abilities when utilizing the Rorschach and these variables are commonly discussed during supervision, seminars and case consultations. Rorschach interpretation methods taught utilize protocol scores as anchors for interpretation. Interpretive methods emphasize the Authoritative, Empirical and Conceptual approaches outlined in chapter 2 of Weiner‟s (2003) text, while what is referred to as the “Ouija Board” approach to interpretation is cautioned. Interns are taught a process of formulating their interpretations utilizing what Weiner (2003) outlines as structural, thematic, and behavioral characteristics as well as sequence analysis. Lastly, psychodynamic interns are employed to utilize developmental and personality theories to contextualize and interpret findings obtained from the earlier described process. This approach provides direction in providing relevant feedback and treatment recommendations to patients, parents and referral sources. Projective Training Circa 1963: For those who have not been in the clinical trenches 50+ years, it might be of some interest to know what the “hayday” of projective assessment was really like. That task falls to the first author, Stedman. So, I enrolled in the ”projectives” offering in the fall 1963, taught by Dr. John Napoli. His motto was, “Napoli‟s the name; Rorschach‟s the game.” So, we did the usual short review of the TAT and proceeded to the Rorschach. The personality assessment portion of a typical report for Professor Napoli and later during my internship went thusly: 58: Stedman, Essery McGeary 1. A paragraph devoted to the patient‟s “reality contact” as determined by scoring the protocol according to the Beck norms. 2. Further consideration of Klopfer ratios and percentages, e.g., the ratio of Movement responses to Sum C, the famous Erlebenstype, indicating response to external or internal stimuli; percent of F- responses with F being Form scorings. 3. A lengthy paragraph or two regarding the patient‟s psychodynamic issues as determined first by the Rorschach and backed up by the TAT, Sentence Completion, and perhaps drawings. The Rorschach was seen as getting at the deepest level of psychodynamic conflict, followed by the TAT. The Sentence Completion and drawings were viewed, at least in my programs, as more superficial measures. 4. Rorschach analysis could occur in what was called “sequence analysis”, conducted on a card by card basis and, at times, a response by response basis. Certain cards had established “pull”. For example, Card IV was the Father Card and Card VII was the Mother Card. This point was brought home to me during my internship when, T, who we thought might be having much conflict with mom, took one look at Card VII, broke it across his knee, and handed it to me. Analysis could also be conducted by reference to the book by Phillips and Smith (1953) who had valuable psychodynamic interpretations for individual types of responses. We were told not to use this text but with a wink. 5. After a lengthy session of puzzlement over all these sources of data, you wrote it all up as a comprehensive picture of the patient. Conclusions: There is now little doubt that training with traditional projective tests has declined at all levels and with all instruments as noted by Piotrowski (2015, 2017) in his reviews. Piotrowski‟s conclusions also noted that researchers and the academic community in general began “hardened opposition” to the projective test cluster in the late 1990s. In fact, as early as 2000, an APA Division 12 Task force recommended that projective techniques not be taught in clinical programs (Lilienfeld et al. 2000) and several authors recommended a” moratorium” for teaching projective instruments (e.g., Wood et al. 2000). Piotrowski speculates that this opposition, the effects of managed care, and other factors (we suspect that the move away from dynamic personality theory and toward behavioral and cognitive-behavioral approaches in clinical training is a strong factor) have contributed to this noteworthy decline. Nevertheless, at the internship level, some adult programs and more child program continue to use and teach at least the Rorschach and picture story techniques. Findings, based on hard data, are much less definitive regarding current training at the graduate school level. However, this training has not disappeared. Those seeking exposure to projective assessment can still find programs teaching and using projective assessment techniques. References: Beck, S. (1944).Rorschach‟s test. New York: Grune and Stratton. Belter, R. W ., & Piotrowski, C. (2001).Current status of doctoral-level training in psychological testing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 717-726. Bram, A.D., & Yalof, J. (2018). Two contemporary Rorschach systems: Views of two experienced Rorschachers on the CS and R-PAS. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 25, this issue. Childs, R. A., & Ende, L. D. (2002) Assessment training in clinical doctoral programs: W hat should we teach? W hat do we teach? Journal of Personality Assessment,78, 130-144. Clemence, A. J., & Handler, L. (2001). Psychological assessment on internship: A survey of Training directors and their expectations for students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 18-47. Durand, M. V., Blanchard, E. B., & Mindell, J. A. (1988). Training in projective testing: Survey of clinical training directors and internship directors. Training in Traditional Personality Assessment: 59 Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 236-238. Exner, J. E. (1969). The Rorschach Systems. New York: Grune and Stratton. Hilsenroth, M. J., & Handler, L. (1995).A survey of graduate students‟ experiences, interests, and attitudes about learning the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 243-257. Klopfer, B., & Davidson, H. H. (1962). The Rorschach technique: An introductory manual. New York: Harcourt, Brace and W orld. Lilenfeld, S. O., W ood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000).The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 27-66. Meyer, G. J., Vigilone, D. J., Mihura, J. L., Erard, R. E., & Erdberg, P. (2011). Rorschach performance assessment system: Administration, coding, interpretation, and technical manual. Toledo, OH: Rorschach Performance Assessment System. Petzel, T.P., & Berndt, D.J. (1980). APA internship selection criteria: Relative importance of academic and clinical preparation. Professional Psychology, 11, 792-796. Phillips,L., & Smith, J.G. (1953). Rorschach interpretation: Advanced technique. New York: Grune and Stratton. Piotrowski, C. (1984). The status of projective techniques: “W ishing won‟t make it go away.” Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 1495-1502. Piotrowski, C. (2015). Clinical instruction on projective techniques in the USA: A review of academic training settings 1995 – 2014. Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health, 22(2), 83-92. Piotrowski, C. (2017). The linchpin on the future of projective techniques: The precarious statusof personality assessment in the (overcrowded) professional psychology curriculum. Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health, 24, 71- 73. Piotrowski, C., & Belter, R. W . (1999). Internship training in psychological assessment: Has managed care had an impact? Assessment, 6, 381-389. Piotrowski, C., & Zalewski, C. (1993).Training in psychodiagnostic testing in APA-approved PsyD and PhD clinical psychology programs. Journal of Personality Assessment,61(2), 394-405. Ready R. E., & Veague, H. B. (2014). Training in psychological assessment: Current practices in clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 278-282. Stedman J. M., Hatch, J. P., & Schoenfeld (2002).Pre- internship preparation of clinical and counseling students in psychological testing, psychotherapy, and supervision: Their readiness for medical school and non-medical school internships. Journal of Clinical Psychological in Medical Schools, 9, 267-271. Stedman, J. M. (1997). W hat we know about predoctoral internship training: A review. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 28, 475-485. Stedman, J. M., Hatch, J. P., & Schoenfeld, L. S. (2000).Preinternship preparation in psychological testing and psychotherapy: W hat internship directors say they want. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 321-326. Stedman, J. M., Hatch, J. P., & Schoenfeld, L. S. (2001b).The current status of psychological assessment training in graduate and professional schools. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 398-407. Stedman, J. M., McGeary, C. A., & Essery, J. (In Press). Current patterns of training in personality assessment during internship. Journal of Clinical Psychology. W atkins, C. E. (1991). W hat have surveys taught us about the teaching and practice of psychological assessment? Journal of Personality Assessment, 56, 380-383. W einer, I.B. (2003). Principles of Rorschach Interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. W einer, I.B., & Greene, R. (Eds.).(2008). Handbook of personality assessment. Hoboken, NJ: W iley & Sons. W ood, J. M., Lilienfeld, S. O., Garb, H. N., & Nezworski, Mt T. (2000). Limitations of the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool: A reply to Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and W einer (2000). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 441-448. Copyright of SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health is the property of Dubay Business Services and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The objective assessment of personality: Cattells's T-data revisited and more1 Santacreu, José;Rubio, Victor J;Hernández, José M Psychology Science; 2006; 48, 1; ProQuest Central pg. 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.