Toward a resolution of the Rorschach controversy.
Comments are made about the articles comprising the first round of the Special Series on the Rorschach. G. Stricker and J. R. Gold (1999) and D. J. Viglione (1999) praised the Rorschach, but they consistently failed to cite negative findings. R. M. Dawes (1999) obtained results that provide modest support for the Rorschach, but one of his data sets is flawed. J. B. Hiller, R. Rosenthal, R. F. Bornstein, D. T. R. Berry, and S. Brunell-Neuleib (1999) reported the results of a meta-analysis, but, among other problems, their coders were not blind to the results of all the studies. J. Hunsley and J. M. Bailey (1999) made a strong case for concluding that there is no scientific basis for using the Rorschach. Recommendations are made for resolving the Rorschach controversy.
Garb
H N
HN
Behavioral Health 116A-H, Pittsburgh Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 7180 Highland Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206-1297 USA. howard.garb@med.va.gov
Wood
J M
JM
Nezworski
M T
MT
Grove
W M
WM
Stejskal
W J
WJ
D003866:Depressive Disorder / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000523:psychology; D006801:Humans; D010552:Personality Assessment / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011594:Psychometrics; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012392:Rorschach Test / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012569:Schizotypal Personality Disorder / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000523:psychology