Is it reliable?, a couple of days ago, before being discharged from the hospital, I took the roscharch test. Curious as I am since I have nothing to do, I started looking into it and found very conflicting opinions about, sources saying it’s strongly supported to others saying its pseudoscience. So, what’s the straight dope on roscharch?
It is pseudoscience for the most part. It wasn’t well-regarded as a psychological test even in the early 90’s when I first started psychometrics classes. It is even less so today. However, it can help identify some disorders at the extremes. If the subject sees violence, sexual imagery or incoherent patterns in every ink blot, that probably means there is an underlying issue but you probably don’t need the Rorschach test to identify those extreme cases. It won’t tell you much of anything useful for anyone even close to the normal range.
What I find funny about it is how some proponents suggest that the cards be shuffled and that the tester shouldn’t know which one the patient is looking at. Less bias! A.k.a. more proof of how subjective it is.
To me, it’s a test to see if the patient recognizes that the tester is a quack.
Why would the tester need to know what the card looks like - there’s really no information there to begin with. It’s just a vehicle to get the patient talking. Whether the test is useful is another story, but I’m not sure why shuffling the cards has any impact pro or con on the tester.
I’m obsessed with sex? You’re the one with all the dirty pictures!
I was given this test by a therapist as part of the intake. Apparently it’s helpful for some initial screening but not much else. Recently I found a survey site with the images and I had the same results. All I see is reproductive organs. Female reproductive organs. And I was really confused that nobody else from my group of friends saw what I saw. It looks so obvious to me. I don’t know what this means, or if it really helped my therapist in the first place.
… isn’t there ?
I mean, I know the cards themselves depict fundamentally meaningless randomly generated ink blots, but I would expect that over the years these specific blots have been used in that specific order, and assuming the test is not full metal quackery, statistical patterns would have been observed. E.g. and very caricaturally “most people who see slide 4 as a bat turned out to be just fine but over 70% of those who saw it as a starfish were homicidal maniacs”, that sort of thing.
My old doctor once offered to do the Rorschach test for me, purely for entertainment (his and mine!) We had a damn fine time of it, as I made up the most outrageous, absurd, over-the-top answers possible. And…I’m sure even that was of use to him in assessing my condition! For a psychiatrist, everything is meaningful!
It was my understanding that the test isn’t actually based on what the subject sees, but on the reasons the subject gives for seeing those things. Is it based on colors, shapes, positions or orientations of those shapes, symmetry or the lack thereof, etc.
I was given that test when they were trying to figure out why I was screwed up in the head. I didn’t like it. Especially when there was an ink blot that looked very obviously like male genitals, and I was way too embarrassed to say what it looked like, continuously insisting that I saw no picture there. Gee, maybe the therapist thought I was sexually repressed or something after that.
Which one looks like genitals?
Maybe Number 6, but I think even that’s a stretch.
May have been no. 6. Or I just have a dirty mind.
ETA: Wish I’d seen that wikipedia page before I knew I’d have the test.
What about this one?
I skimmed through a textbook with a section on the Rorschach, once. This was mentioned along with how quickly the answer is given, whether multiple possibilities are given, and whether the patient spontaneously turns the card to see if they can see something in a different orientation. I don’t remember it being mentioned, but one possible reaction would be a dogmatic hold to one choice. A belief that there’s one, and only one, correct interpretation.
I thought of that at once.
See, as far back as I can remember, the Rorschach test has been a staple of jokes and comedy sketches about psychology, but I’ve never gotten the sense that it’s widely regarded as a genuinely important tool by real psychiatrists or psychoogists.
15 posts in and nobody explicitly points out the spelling error in the thread title? Are we becoming more polite, or what?
I figure that you can tell a lot about a person by what they say when confronted with the veracity of the test.
Raw Shark? Why should I want to know where to find raw…
Ninja’d. I was just about to post that joke…
J.
It’s not so much what you say but how you say it. If you have a 16 year old boy who sees death in all of them, he could be disturbed or he could be a normal snarky teenager.
I have been to many psychologists and psychiatrists over the years. I have never been given Rorschach or any sort of projective tests, and I doubt any of them had any available. I’ve done the MMPI and the shorter California test, that’s it, certainly little room for interpretation there. It’s more associated with old-school, lie-on-this-couch, psychodynamic therapists. I think you’d find this test more in New England, and maybe France and Argentina where this crap is popular.