how are the results of ink blot tests really used in determining the overall mantal health of a person. i mean, i can understand if in every ink blot a person saw dying puppies and monsters and dick cheney but the routine ummm a bunny? response cant really help. also, are inkblots still used in mental health testing. what other tests are used in a standard phyciological workup- thanks
Yes, it’s still used. *What *you see is less important than why and how/if you can explain it. It’s used to see if you can articulate your thought process and if that thought process is within normal limits or if it’s…off. Even if you see rabid puppies, if you can point to a squiggle and say, “Look, this bit here looks like foam dripping off a puppy’s muzzle, and foam might mean rabies in a dog. Rabies scares me,” that’s more organized and normal thinking than. “Puppies…rabies…puppies with rabies. Toothbrush synthesizer rabies shoehorn butterhorse, Man! Rabies!!!”
The other most commonly used test is the MMPI, or the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, which is a 567 answer true/false test.
It’s theoretically based on empirical evidence. You give the test to a group of several thousand people and note their responses. Then you correlate the results with established mental health histories. If you discover that 95% of the diagnosed paranoids say a particular spot looks like a butterfly and 95% of non-paranoids say that same spot looks like Abraham Lincoln, you’ve got a good predictive test for paranoia without having to figure out the psychological meaning of butterflies and presidents.
No single test can say much about a person, including the Rorschach (the inkblot test). Testing should occur as part of a constellation of tests and a good clinical interview. Those tests should use some different methods and sample different areas of response in order to get a more well-rounded impression of the person. An example of a typical set of tests is:
Clinical interview (includes the examinee’s history, family background, the history of the presenting problem, evaluation of activities of daily living if relevant, drug use, hospitalizations, medical issues, etc.)
Chart or record review (if relevant)
Screen for organicity (physical dysfunction) if necessary: Mini-mental state exam, clock face drawing, free drawing, etc.
Cognitive or academic testing as needed: WAIS, Woodcock-Johnson, Wonderlic, etc.
Objective personality/pathology testing: MMPI, PAI, MCMI, Beck instruments, etc.
Projective personality/pathology testing: Thematic Apperception Test, Rorschach, etc.
In some cases, normative personality testing (16PF, Myers-Briggs) might be used, and career assessments (Strong, Campbell) might be added as well.
Specific tests such as dissociation or OCD scales may also be used.
If gross neurological problems may be a factor, there will be a referral for neurological testing instead.
A great deal of information about the Rorschach found online, particularly information purporting to help a person scam the test, is inaccurate. A person would do better either to take the test in the context of a larger set of tests and interviews, or simply to decline to take it. The Rorschach is not uncontroversial, but my experience is that used and interpreted correctly in the context of a larger evaluation it can be quite helpful and useful for treatment planning.
Too long typing to add to previous:
On preview: It should be added that the ratios and formulae used to calculate Rorschach scores would require several responses in the scored direction–using Little Nemo’s example, one answer (or sometimes several) in “mental health category x” won’t be significant, but several, and a pattern or constellation with several other variables might be. In other words, trends are more important than and individual datum.
Standard joke punchline: “What do you mean, I’m obsessed with sex? Doc, you’re the one whose been showing me all those dirty pictures!”
The Rorschach Test. Check it out.
Speaking as one of the psychologists (but not “outraged”) who wrote to and is quoted on the deltabravo site, I reitterate:
-
Some of their information is incorrect. Answering as they suggest will not make a person look “normal,” it will demonstrate that a person is deceitful. This will not be a good way to show that you should have custody, or whatever.
-
In addition, statements such as this are utter tripe and have nothing to do with anything:
- If you do not want to take the Rorschach, politely state that you do not want to take the Rorschach.
That linked site may not be a violation of the Rorschach Test’s copyright but it sounds very familiar. William Poundstone wrote a chapter about Rorschach Tests in one of his Big Secrets books and that website appears to be very similar to what he wrote. Admittedly, I don’t have the book in front of me to do a word-by-word comparison.