Week 9

Question 1

As we interpret, should we be highlighting/attending to scores that are over 110/under 90, or be using the traditional 115/85 as indications of elevation/depression of scores?

Answer 1

As we know scores are on a continuum–very little difference between 114 and 115. I might handle it like page 1 and page 2 (or maybe better page 3): not ignoring 110 to 114 but not giving them as much weight as over 115—and would even consider 130 much more than 120. So, it is a relative process. I might take to using * and even ** in my shifting. Same for low scores. This process would be emphasized in protocols that have few extreme scores and deemphasized in protocols that have many extreme scores because we are trying to clarify the protocol. Of course too, some indicators are more valuable than others (M vs a-p). A lot of this process comes with experience

Question 2

Strengths because the Ror. is a performance based assessment

Answer 2

Standardized, in vivo demonstrations of reality testing, problem-solving, perceptual processing and thinking, and interpersonal behavior
(learn how someone problem solves, perceptual processing, thinking, and relationships)

Sensitive to characteristic representations of self, others, and interactions

Samples salient concerns, meanings and preoccupations

Question 3

Limitations because the Ror. is a performance based assessment

Answer 3

It can be uninformative when respondents do not spontaneously engage with the task
- Either intrinsic limitations (learning disability) or situational defensiveness (don’t want to coopeartive)

It is inherently difficult to determine how and when implicit qualities will be expressed in overt behavior

Question 4

Why important to integrate MMPI and Ror.

Answer 4

Multi-method assessment is foundational to good assessment

Rorschach and MMPI largely provide complimentary data

Question 5

Important differences in MMPi and Ror. to consider when integrating

Answer 5

Rorschach findings generally address implicit qualities

MMPI findings usually reflect explicit qualities

Question 6

What is the “nature” of the MMPI

Answer 6

Draws on intellectual mechanism

Is non-interactive
Generally reveals self-presentation and conscious view of self at the time of testing (however, empirical aspect can give unseen correlates)

Clients who use intellectual defenses, function well in structured, non-interpersonal situations, can look good on the MMPI and give benign profile

Question 7

“nature” of the Ror.

Answer 7

Interpersonal

Unstructured (more anxiety)

Reveals problems in cognition, perception, and affect that arise in unstructured, interpersonal, emotion arousing situations

Question 8

When the MMPI and Ror. Agree

Answer 8

1. Convergent data that gives more confidence in findings
2. Still, each can enrich the findings of the other tests

Question 9

When the MMPI shows pathology and the Ror. does not

Answer 9

Could be malingering, exaggeration, cry for help

OR

Didn’t engage in Ror. Shut down because:
- too interpersonal
- too regressive
- too overhwleming

Question 10

When the Rorschach shows pathology & MMPI does not

Answer 10

Hidden pathology! Either because:

1) conscious of pathology and trying to look good

2) Unaware of pathology, client and therapist may both be stumped

There is evidence of problems that arise in situations that are:
- interpersonal
- Unstructured
- Emotional arousing

Question 11

When MMPI and Ror. don’t match (graph)

Answer 11

Question 12

Incremental Validity and Ror.

Answer 12

Incremental validity over other tests is important to consider

Rorschach taps a different level of functioning than other tests

don’t expect results to correlate highly with self-report

Question 13

What can you control for to increase correlation between self-report and Ror.

Answer 13

Meyer (2000) found that if you control for test-taking attitude, the correlations are reasonable between self-report and Ror.

Question 14

Inference: Making meaning of data through reasoning

Answer 14

USE MULTIPLE METHODS
- Consider the nature of the data a particular method provides

• Be careful to consider the strength of the data
  (e.g., one item vs collection of items vs composite scores)
• Look for patterns (repeating elements)
• Look for how the data fit together to provide meaning beyond what the individual parts mean themselves
• Stay open to multiple possibilities
• Continuously consider new hypotheses
• Do not lightly disregard data that does not support a hypothesis, rather try to tweak the hypothesis to explain it
• Capture the level of confidence in the language used in reporting the data (certainty to conjecture).