Premium
Limitations of the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool: A reply to Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and Weiner (2000)
Author(s) -
Wood James M.,
Lilienfeld Scott O.,
Garb Howard N.,
Nezworski M. Teresa
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(200003)56:3<441::aid-jclp19>3.0.co;2-q
Subject(s) - rorschach test , psychology , assertion , test (biology) , medical diagnosis , psychoanalysis , clinical psychology , medicine , paleontology , pathology , computer science , biology , programming language
In “The Rorschach Test in Clinical Diagnosis: A Critical Review, With a Backward Look at Garfield (1947),” we have shown that the Rorschach has little validity as a diagnostic tool. In the present piece, we respond to comments by Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and Weiner (2000). Until very recently, Rorschach proponents have claimed that the test is useful for diagnostic purposes. It is striking, therefore, that the commentators on our article do not dispute strongly its conclusion that Rorschach scores generally are unrelated to psychiatric diagnoses. Instead, one commentator argues that the test's true usefulness consists in identifying symptoms and predicting behavioral outcomes. However, only three specific examples are given to support this assertion. Although the Rorschach may be useful for these other purposes, the burden of proof falls squarely on the test's proponents to document such claims. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 56: 441–448, 2000.