The Incremental and Predictive Validity of the Rorschach Test in Personality Assessments of

161 Pages·2017·5 MB·English

Louisiana State University
LSU Digital Commons
LSU Historical Dissertations and Teses Graduate School
1968
Te Incremental and Predictive Validity of the
Rorschach Test in Personality Assessments of
Normal, Neurotic and Psychotic Subjects.
Irwin Gadol
Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Follow this and additional works at: htps://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses
Recommended Citation
Gadol, Irwin, "Te Incremental and Predictive Validity of the Rorschach Test in Personality Assessments of Normal, Neurotic and
Psychotic Subjects." (1968). LSU Historical Dissertations and Teses. 1486.
htps://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/1486
Tis Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
LSU Historical Dissertations and Teses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact
This dissertation has been
69-4469
microfilmed exactly as received
GADOL, Irwin, 1936-
THE INCREMENTAL AND PREDICTIVE
VALIDITY OF THE RORSCHACH TEST IN
PERSONALITY ASSESSMENTS OF NORMAL,
NEUROTIC AND PSYCHOTIC SUBJECTS.
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College, Ph.D., 1968
Psychology, clinical
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
(c), Irwin Gadol 1969
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THE INCREMENTAL AND PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF THE RORSCHACH
TEST IN PERSONALITY ASSESSMENTS OF NORMAL,.
NEUROTIC AND PSYCHOTIC SUBJECTS
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
The Department of Psychology
by
Irwin Gadol
B.A„, Brooklyn College, 1960
M.S., City College of New York, 1963
August, 1968
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Marriages may be made in heaven, but the author has discovered
that dissertations are made because a great many friends and sympathe­
tic individuals devote their time and energy generously for a common
goal. Therefore, it is necessary for the author to give sincere
thanks to:
The dissertation committee, Drs. Dawson (Chairman), Stabler,
Yang, Seay and Haag for their guidance and support.
The Department of Psychology and Chairman Laurence Siegel,
for the financial support that was necessary in order to
provide supplies and stationery.
Elizabeth Griffith, Mike Moro, Shirley Smith, Ed Derasil,
Zed Van Buren and Dr. Howard Bell for helping to secure
Rorschach subjects.
Dr, Don Schrag for drafting graduate clinical psychology
students at the University of Alabama to act as judges.
Bill and Sue Wheeler, Don and Shirley Lichtenstein, Ann
Gadol, Bob Schlottman, Jack and Millie Millar, Claudette
and Ron Gandolfo who served as judges in the development
of a Social Desirability Scale for the CQ-sort,
Dr. Bob Lovitt, Dr, Hal Weingold, Don Lichtenstein and Ron
Gandolfo who served as judges in developing the Pheno­
typic/Genotypic Scale for the CQ-sort.
Dr. Bob Lovitt, Don Lichtenstein, Dr. Nat Gottfried, Ron
Gandolfo and Ken Dupuy who served as judges in the
development of the Four Factor Rating Scale for the
CQ-sort in this study.
The more than 175 judges who considered the Rorschach
cases.
John Lachin for help in matters statistical.
Dr. Hal Weingold for Sunday conferences and conversations
that were helpful in conceptualizing a suitable problem
of inquiry.
ii
Dr. J, G. Dawson, Major Professor, guide and teacher, but
most of all a good friend.
Last, but not least, I wish to acknowledge the debt I owe to
my wife, Ann Weinberg Gadol, who served as secretary, bookkeeper,
printer’s devil, and who knows that words alone cannot express the
true debt I owe.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE P A G E .................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............ ii
LIST OF TABLES....................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES......................................... vi
ABSTRACT . . . . . .......................................... vii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION . . ........................ . . . . . 1
Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction ........ 3
Factors in Clinical Judgment and Prediction. . . 7
Judge Related Variable ....................... 8
Training and Experience ........... 8
Confidence . . . . . ....................... 9
Cognitive Style. ........................... 11
Personality.................................... 12
General Ability................................14
Subject Related Variables....................... 15
Personality.................................... 15
Diagnosis and Pathology....................... 16
Process Related Variables.......... 18
Stereotyping ............. 19
Premature Conclusions. . '..................... 21
Inference and Formation Models ............. 22
Miscellaneous. ............................. 25
Data Related Variables ....................... 26
Amount of Data . . . ....................... 26
Type of Data; Non-Psychometric ............ 28
Basic Identifying Data (BID)............... 28
Social Case D a t a ............ 29
Interviews............................... 30
Type of Data: Psychometric.................. 33
Output Data; The Q-sort .............34
Summary and Critique . .................. 37
Statement of the Problem......................... 43
Hi a-*
PAGE
CHAPTER
II.M ETHO D.............................................. 45
Procedure....................................... 45
Judges......................................... 46
Subjects....................................... 46
Criterion Judges ............................... 47
Input D a t a ..................................... 47
Output Data............................... 48
Confidence.................................... 49
III.R ESULTS.............................................. 51
Pathology and Accuracy .................... 53
Amount of Information and Accuracy............. 56
Level of Traininga nd Accuracy................ 60
Level of Traininga nd Confidence............... 63
Level of Accuracya nd Confidence............... 65
Criterion Measures ............................. 67
Social Desirability andA ccuracy................ 69
IV.D ISCUSSION.......................................... 71
Pathology and Accuracy......................... 71
Information Amount andA ccuracy................. 71
Level of Training and Accuracy................ 76
Training, Accuracy andC onfidence. . . . . . . . 78
Criterion Measures.................. 80
Hypotheses...................................... 82
Critique and Suggestions forF urther Research. . 84
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................. • 88
APPENDIX A ....................................................101
APPENDIX ....................................................106
APPENDIX C ....................................................116
APPENDIX ....................................................141
V I T A ...........................................................147
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Mean Correlations for Pathology X Experience Factors . . 51
2. Mean Correlations for Pathology X Information Factors, , 52
3. Mean Correlations for Experience X Information Factors , 52
4. Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Accuracy........ 53
5. Duncan Multiple Range Test Applied to the Main Factor
of Pathology......................................... 54
6 . Duncan Multiple Range Test Applied to the Interaction
Between Pathology and Information..................... 54
7. Duncan Multiple Range Test Applied to the Interaction
Between Pathology and Experience ..................... 55
8 . Duncan Multiple Range Test Applied to the Main Effect
of Information....................................... 57
9. Errors by Experience Groups for Two Ranking Scales
by Percentages....................................... 62
10. Means for Confidence Variable 1 for Experience by
Information Factors.......... 65
11. Means for Confidence Variable 2 for Experience by
Information Factors................................... 65
12. Means for Confidence Variable 1 on the Factors of
Accuracy and Pathology ............................... 66
13. Means for Confidence Variable 2 on the Factors of
Accuracy and Pathology ....................... 66
14. Comparison of Confidence Variable 1 and 2 .............. 67
15. Inter-judge Agreement, Spearman-Brown and Social
Desirability Coefficients............................. 68
16. Rankings for Cases on Social Desirability and Ease
of Assessment.................. 70
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Mean Accuracy for the Information Factor.............. 59
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal amount
of Rorschach protocol data required for maximal accuracy in person­
ality assessment when experience level of judges and degree of
pathology of the subjects are taken into account. Confidence in
judgment as it relates to the same three factors was also examined.
One hundred forty-four judges, consisting of 36 untrained
undergraduates, 36 senior undergraduate psychology majors, 36
graduate clinical psychology students, and 36 Ph.D.’s who were
Fellows of the Society of Projective Techniques, or had indicated a
special interest in projective techniques in the APA Directory, were
used.
Six Rorschach tests were administered to persons represent­
ing Normal, Neurotic and Psychotic states of mental health. They
were selected on the basis of their life situations, treatment condi­
tion, and results on the MMPI.
Case data was then divided into the following separate
increments:
1 -Basic Identifying Data (BID): age, sex, level of educa­
tion, marital status, past and present treatment status,
and occupation.
2 - BID plus Free Association and the Location Sheet (FA
and Loc).
3 - BID, FA, Loc, and Scoring based upon FA (Sc).
4 - BID, FA, Loc and Inquiry (Inq).