Abstract
This study aimed at exploring reliability differences in clinical diagnostic judgments. Twenty clinical psychologists volunteered for an examination of the consistency of their judgmental performance in matching test results and projective protocols against autobiographies. Psychologist-judges matched, at a better than chance level, Rorschach, TAT, and Sentence Completion Test protocols and objective, paper-and-pencil test data for 6 Ss against their complete autobiographies. Judges differed among themselves but individually were consistent. Judges who were superior in matching one kind of test against autobiography were superior in matching all other tests against autobiography. The matching test is a promising tool for measuring the reliability of diagnostic judgment of test analyzers and interpreters. Further research is needed in the use of matching methods in the study of clinical diagnosis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.