title: Defining projective techniques: finding common ground for discourse.
abstract: In 2000 Lilienfeld, Wood, and Garb defined projective tests in a traditional yet loose manner. When a more precise and exclusive definition is furnished, two classes of responses indicative of deviancy can be logically derived. It is suggested that a focused review of the literature yields consistent relations between psychopathology and two response types, falsifications and misrepresentations. This provides common ground for recognizing a circumscribed core of valid predictors across projective techniques.
authors.forename: Edwin E
authors.initials: EE
authors.lastname: Wagner
mesh_terms: D015982:Bias; D006801:Humans; D015588:Observer Variation; D010555:Personality Inventory / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011386:Projective Techniques / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011594:Psychometrics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011599:Psychopathology; D015203:Reproducibility of Results