Common definitions of projective tests are examined and shown to be imprecise. A distinction is made between projective tests and the projective technique. It is argued that the unique formal feature of the projective technique is its particular scoring process: response categories are intensionally defined and comprise infinite sets of responses. Although two groups of projective tests are differentiated, a continuity from ‘psychometric’ to projective tests is argued. Statistical implications are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronowE.ReznikoffM., & RauchwayA.Some old and new directions in Rorschach testing. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1979, 43, 227–234.
2.
BenderL.A visual-motor Gestalt test and its clinical use. New York: American Orthopsychiatry Association, 1938. (Research Monograph No. 3)
3.
BlattS. J.The validity of projective techniques and their research and clinical contribution. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1975, 39, 327–343.
4.
BolgarH.A re-evaluation of projective theory. In KlopferB. (Ed.), Developments in the Rorschach technique. Vol. 2. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1956. Pp. 643–657.
5.
DanaR. H.Ruminations on teaching projective assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1975, 39, 563–572.
HoltR. R.Yet another look at clinical and statistical prediction: Or, is clinical psychology worthwhile?American Psychologist, 1970, 25, 337–349.
9.
HoltzmanW. H.Objective scoring of projective techniques. In BassB. M. & BergI. A. (Eds.), Objective approaches to personality assessment. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1959. Pp. 119–145.
10.
HoltzmanW. H.ThorpeJ. S.SwartzJ. D., & HerronE. W.Inkblot perception and personality. Austin: Univer. of Texas Press, 1961.
11.
HuttM.The Hutt adaptation of the Bender Gestalt Test. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1969.
LindzeyG.Projective techniques and cross-cultural research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1961.
14.
MeehlP. E.Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis: Jones Press, 1954.
15.
MeehlP. E.The dynamics of ‘structured’ personality tests. In JacksonD. N. & MessickS. (Eds.), Problems in human assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Pp. 517–522.
16.
MursteinB. I.Theory and research in projective techniques (emphasizing the TAT). New York: Wiley, 1963.
RabinA. I.Projective methods: A historical introduction. In RabinA. I. (Ed.), Projective techniques in personality assessment. New York: Springer, 1968. Pp. 3–17.
19.
RaderG. E., & SchillT. R.Blind test interpretation to overcome student resistance to projective technique courses. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1973, 37, 213–216.
20.
RitzlerB. A., & DelgaudioA. C.A survey of Rorschach testing in APA approved clinical programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1976, 40, 451–453.
21.
RosenzweigS.The picture-association method and its application in a study of reaction to frustration. Journal of Personality, 1945, 14, 3–23.
22.
SchwartzF., & LazarZ.The scientific status of the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1979, 43, 3–11.
23.
ShneidmanE. S.Some relationships between the Rorschach technique and other psychodiagnostic tests. In KlopferB. (Ed.), Developments in the Rorschach technique. Vol. 2. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1956. Pp. 595–642.
