A new perspective on the usefulness of the Rorschach test in psychological assessment.Reflections on the short version of the test (Basic Rorschach)

Abstract

Abstract The Rorschach test is the most well-known psychological test ever invented; it has captured the imagination of entire generations of clinicians, researchers, artists, writers, and ordinary participants in mass culture. Yet, no psychological test has faced such heavily emotional criticism. The drastically ambiguous status of this test in the community of psychologists can be call an identity crisis. This is the diagnosis presented in the book titled Assessment Using the Rorschach Inkblot Test by James P. Choca and Edward D. Rossini, American professors of clinical psychology currently affiliated with the Roosevelt University in Chicago. It was this book that inspired the present article. Choca and Rossini claim that the crisis associated with the use of the inkblot test stems from the lack of understanding of what the essence of this test actually is and from its improper usage. They also indicate realistic and practical ways to overcome this crisis. Faced with the excessively elaborate systems for processing and interpreting the material obtained using the test, the authors attempt to create a short version of the inkblot test (Basic Rorschach). In the short version it is possible to use a smaller number of categories or even limit oneself to use only four plates instead of ten. Choca and Rossini admit that the Basic Rorschach requires further studies; they are also willing to give psychologists a great degree of freedom and the possibility of deciding what to take into account and what to ignore in the interpretation of results. They also propose to introduce a new final phase of the test, which, in a way, involves the examinee in the process of analyzing his or her responses. In this paper I address the changes proposed by the authors, concerning both the procedure and the manner of categorizing and interpreting responses. For this purpose, I use own clinical experience and the results of my empirical research.