Class 3 Flashcards
Four Principles of Administration
- Follow standardized procedures (important to have same stimuli for everyone)
- The examiner is non-directive (let the client lead)
- Capture the client’s performance accurately (write down all that is said by the client and you)
- Focus on what the client sees and how they see it (I.e., solve the problems the inkblots presents)
Materials
The 10 Rorschach cards in order
At least 2 Location sheets (out of sight)
Two pens
Clipboard
OR now with the RPAS administration you can use a laptop (RPAS provides a Word template for ease on laptop)
Preperation
Have at least an hour for the test
Quiet area with no distractions
Establish rapport
Ask what they know about the Rorschach
- Investigate their knowledge of the Rorschach
- Clarify any misunderstandings
- “I want you to tell me what they look like to you”
Move to side-by side seating, slightly behind
Have the cards face down in order with card I at top
Possible coaching or motivated distortion
Ask directly about preparation
If so, decide whether to proceed
If proceed, ask client if willing to be honest and spontaneous
Be familiar with public availability of materials
Two Phases
- Response phase (RP)
- What might this be? - Clarification phase (CO)
-Carefully worded questions to resolve coding ambiguities
Response Phase
“I will hand the inkblots to you one at a time and your task is to look at each card to answer the question ‘What might this be?’ Does that make sense?”
“Try to give 2 responses, or maybe 3 to each card”
Hand the first card upright and have them take it.
“What might this be?”
Administration Issues
What might this be? Then be quiet, look at your paper. Let there be a long silence if needed.
Keep location sheets out of sight (but don’t be secretive)
Administration requires energy and focus; don’t be hung over of feel ill
Abbreviations/Shorthand
Very helpful!
See page 26 of the RPAS Manual
Practice with them!
Things Not to Say or Do
Avoid saying “ambiguous” or “unstructured”
Avoid saying there is no right or wrong answer (Can say “different people see different things”)
Avoid saying “most people… can or should say or do something”
Do not mislead the client into thinking that imagination or creativity is being tested
Responses to Questions
Can I turn it? Should I use the whole thing?
> “It’s up to you.”
How are they made?
> Briefly explain and move on
Does everybody look at different ones?
> “No, it’s a standard set; everyone gets the same ones”
What does it mean? Is there a right answer?
> “Let’s discuss that once the testing is completed.”
Do you see it?
> Response phase: “Let’s come back to that after we go through the cards.”
> Clarification phase: “Yes, I see it. Or No, not yet”
Prompt and Pull
“What might this be?” is generally needed on the first couple of cards
If only 1 response
> PROMPT for another, but only 1 prompt per card
> First occurrence say “we would like 2 or maybe 3 to each card, so please try to give another.”
After 4 responses, PULL the card
Don’t accept card rejections
- “Take your time, there is no hurry. Look some more to see something else too.” Maybe add “you can do it.”
If 15 or fewer responses
“That was fine. However, we need a few more responses for the test to be helpful. So let’s go through the cards again. Take your time when looking at them and see what other things you can come up with.”
Start with Card I and say, “What else might this be?”
Do not use extra prompts
Not necessary to get a response on each card
Do not present a card on which they already gave 4 responses
Once there are 4 responses, pull the card
Add these additional responses to the protocol and in the Clarification phase, clarify card by card (integrating the supplementary responses with each card)
Phase 2: Clarification
Used only to resolve scoring uncertainties (location, determinants)
Clarify key word or phrases: (pretty, ugly, rotten, wild, mysterious, back there)
Focus the questions to resolve coding dilemmas
Write down everything said as best you can
Phase 2: Clarification (Cont.)
“Now we are going to start the final step. While looking at the cards I want to review your responses with you to clarify what it is that you saw and how you saw it. So we will look at the cards one by one. I will read your responses back to you, and I want to show where on the cards you were looking and what about the inkblot made it look like that to you. Does that make sense?”
Answer questions about the CP directly
Repeat each response verbatim
Write down what is said and note significant gestures
Identify non-obvious and salient components on the location sheet
Can use “5=W” as appropriate
Phase 2: Clarification (Cont.)
Usually involves no more than 1 or 2 questions
Be as non-directive as possible (to minimize the danger of influencing the client)
Clarification questions are not always needed (you may already have enough information to score from the RP)
Location clarification is rarely needed (no need to be overly precise)
Phase 2: Clarification (Cont.)
Use visual language with client in the CP (“Looks,” “see” rather than “suggests…”)
Focus your attention on key words or phrases from RP and early CP (that suggest but do not confirm a determinant)
Avoid vague questions (“What makes it l.l. that)
Don’t need to see it exactly as the client does
Phase 2: Clarification (Cont.)
Vary language so as not to set a problem-solving set (see p. 173-175)
- “What makes it l.l….”
- “Help me see the…”
- “What gives it the look of a …”
- “You said it was a dark stain”
- “a deep valley??”
- “You said the green part l.l. a bug, so I see where it is, but I am not sure what makes it l.l. that to you”
When confusing response: I’m not sure how you see it.
Phase 2: Clarification (Cont.)
Sometimes it is necessary to clarify whether an ambiguous verbalization is one or two responses
- Repeat back the response and often the client will spontaneously clarify the question in your mind
- If client reported 2 thinks, read the first and see if they clarify the question in your mind
- If still not clarified, you may need to ask directly, “was that one or two answers?”
Clarification Don’ts
Don’t ask questions that don’t have a purpose (target one or more specific coding category)
Don’t ask too many questions
Don’t keep going after a score you “know” must be there
Don’t ask leading questions: (is it moving? are you using color??)
Documentation
Document enough that another person could code the record (using commonly known shorthand)
Verbatim response, relevant gestures
Orientation of the card (<^>)
Note Prompts (PR) and Pulls (PU)
Location on the location sheet during clarification
Ask client to slow down or repeat as necessary
Put examiner comments/questions in parentheses
Document if supplemental responses were needed
Code as soon as possible!
Coding Principles
Code how client saw this cloud at this time (not clouds in general)
Code what is articulated and sometimes gestures (rubbing the card)
Code what is on the card, not something off the card (although it doesn’t have to be seen, as long as it resides on the card)
Code categories independent of each other
Coding
Code what was seen in the RP (ignore CP information that contradicts the RP)
The goal is to code accurately, not necessarily to see it the way they do
The Reasonably Certain Standard (if “reasonable certain,” code it (practice))
Coding competence is necessary to know what needs clarification
Coding problems are most often due to clarification problems
Inter-Rater Reliability
Interrater agreement is a critical aspect of coding the Rorschach
Over 85 studies done on Reliability of Rorschach scoring/coding over the years
The most thorough and meticulous is by Acklin, McDowell, Verschell, & Chan (2000)
Viglione, Blume-Marcovici, Miller, Giromini, and Meyer (2012)
Results: Mean ICC of all 62 RPAS indicators = .88 (Std. Deviation = .11; Median = .92)
Strong for all but Y and m
Test-Retest
> Pretty stable over long intervals, some even in .90, Y and m are low (.22, .32, .51)
> State variables
- Navy psychologist
- Paratroopers
- Surgery patients - elective
> 38 test-retest reliability studies done by 1985
Evidence of Test-Retest Reliability
Children in elementary school
- Took children of the classroom to help “train” examiners
- Day 2 (3-4 days later)
- Control group– same directions
- Experimental group–give different responses
- And they did give different responses
- 85% same responses in the control group
- 14% same responses in the experimental group
Yet the correlations between the Structural Summary for each child was similar in each group!
Replicated in 1982 with adults (Nancy Haller)
> Similar results as with the children
Overall
Test-Retest reliability seems strong
Inter-rater reliability seems to be good except for a few indicators
Since the Acklin et al study, a coding book has been published with detailed guidelines covering how to code, presumably increasing those variables that showed lower inter-rate reliability
Overview of Coding Categories
Card orientation (<^>)
Location (W, D, Dd)
SR/SI (SR, SI)
Content (*)
Sy/Yg (Sy, Yg)
Pair (2)
Form Quality (o, u, -)
Popular (P)
Determinants (*)
Cognitive codes (*)
Thematic codes (*)
HR (GHR, PHR)
ODL (RP only) - (+)
R-OPT (PR, PU)
Card Orientation
< top facing left
v top facing down
> top facing right
@ response is upright but the card was turned at least 90 degrees before giving the response
Reasons to Code Orientation
- to help coding FQ
- to help interpret reflections
[If card held upright but response is upside down, code the cards orientation as upright, and note location as upside down]
Prompts and Pulls
Code PR and PU for every card for which you are required to prompt or pull
If a client spontaneously hands the card back after the 4th response, do not code PU
Location
W (Whole)
D (Common detail)*
Dd (Unusual detail)*
*Found in the FQ tables in Chapter 6, along with specific numbers (Dd99 means not in the table)
If multiple content, list location of all that apply in the Loc # column
“Code D for symmetrically paired objects that together reside in D location.” page 64
Do not code Dd for near-D if they differ only slightly from the D location (unimportant location differences) (pages 66-67)
Made easy in R-PAS…. “follow the dotted lines”
Using White Spaces
SR if space is the foreground
- Space is normally background but score SR if it becomes foreground
> Swimming against the current, self-assertion, resisting pressure, thinking outside the box, or oppositionalism (p. 72-73)
SI if space is articulated detail inside or integrating an ink part as well
Can score both (see p. 72)
Identifying lightly colored areas as “white”
- Code SI, if the response is integrated with other parts of the blot
- Do not code SR
Card I
R: 4 ghosts dancing in the dark
SR space reversal to see independent objects in the space
SI to see white integrated with the ink
Content
H - Whole human
(H) - Imaginary human
Hd - Human detail
(Hd) - Imaginary human detail
A - Whole animal
(A) - Imaginary animal
Ad - Animal detail
(Ad) - Imaginary animal detail
NC - Not classified
An - Anatomy
Art - Art
Ay - Anthropology
Bl - Blood
Cg - Clothing
Ex - Explosion
Fi - Fire
Sx - Sex
Sy and Vy
Sy - Synthesis
– Distinct and separate objects in a relationship
Vg - Vagueness
– Objects with vague or indistinct outline or boundaries (no form demand) and no form added/injected
