A critique of Lilienfeld et al.'s (2000) "The scientific status of projective techniques".
Lilienfeld, Wood, and Garb (2000) published a largely negative critique of the validity and reliability of projective methods, concentrating on the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach (Exner, 1993), 3 systems for coding the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) cards, and human figure drawings. This article is an effort to document and correct what I perceive as errors of omission and commission in the Lilienfeld et al. article. When projective measures are viewed in the light of these corrections, the evidence for the validity and clinical usefulness of the Rorschach and TAT methods is more robust than Lilienfeld et al. represented.
Hibbard
Stephen
S
Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. hibbard@uwindsor.ca
D015982:Bias; D006801:Humans; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000523:psychology; D011386:Projective Techniques / Q000592:standards*; D011581:Psychological Tests; D011594:Psychometrics; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design; D012392:Rorschach Test / Q000592:standards; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires