Thematic Apperception Techniques (TAT, CAT) in Assessment: A Summary Review of 67 Survey-based Studies of Training and Professional Settings

Chris Piotrowski

A cursory review of the recent literature in the areas of testing and assessment tends to depict the impression that Thematic tests have been largely eschewed in professional practice over the past 2 decades. Indeed, this class of assessment instruments has been the target of extensive criticism based on incisive reviews of the literature (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2000). The intent of the current study is to determine whether this collective movement, evident in the scholarly literature since 1990, against Thematic assessment, has had a deleterious impact on the popularity of these tests in graduate training programs and professional usage worldwide. To that end, the author identified, through an extensive literature review, published survey research with regard to Thematic instruments that reported on assessment training and test usage patterns from 1989-2017. The 67 identified survey-based or records-based studies served as the data pool in the current review (Training=16; Practice=51 settings). The summary analysis indicated that 43 of the 67 studies (64%) reported that Thematic tests have been relied upon in assessment training or practice to at least a „moderate‟ degree. This trend was particularly evident in 9 of the 16 surveys (56%) of graduate-level and internship training. However, only 20% (n=10) of the practice-based studies reported a high level (top 10 ranking) of usage of Thematic techniques. Most of the 67 studies found infrequent use of children‟s Thematic tests (e.g., CAT). This review revealed that, over the years, Thematic techniques have been favored by clinical psychologists and professional counselors, but rather neglected in forensic and neuropsychological assessment. Also, a dramatic decline in usage of both the TAT and CAT was noted in most samples of school psychologists. Noteworthy, several studies found that coursework and training emphasis with the TAT was rather cursory and unstructured. On a cautionary note, this review observed a slight diminutive trend in Thematic methods in both training and practice since 2008. Thus, the future status of Thematic tests in the assessment armamentarium appears precarious, particularly as competing assessment approaches and novel testing instruments emerge in the field. Finally, there is a need for additional research regarding the scope of Thematic assessment in training programs in countries outside the USA (Piotrowski, 2015b), due to the dearth of studies of academic settings overseas.

Over the past 75 years, Thematic methods, within the family of projective tests, have been popular assessment tools (Dana, 1996; Dupree &Prevatt, 2003; Frank, 1948; Handler & Hilsenroth, 1998; Handler & Smith, 2013; Keddy & Piotrowski, 1992; Klopfer & Taulbee, 1976; McGrath & Carroll, 2012; Murstein, 1965; Piotrowski, 2015a; Piotrowski & Keller, 1989, 1992; Wade & Baker, 1977). Despite their status in the testing community, projective tests have generated much scholarly criticism by clinicians and academicians over the years, even during the zenith of their popularity (e.g., Butcher, 2006; Fisher, 1967; Ivnik, 1977; Keiser & Prather, 1990;  Retzlaff,  1992;  Reynolds,  1979;

Swensen, 1968; Vukovich, 1983). Since this onslaught of academic critique has been particularly contentious over the past 25 years (see Garb et al., 2002; Lilienfeld et al., 2015; Meyer et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2002), the aim of the current study is to review the extant literature, since 1989, on assessment usage

of the most popular thematic tests (i.e., the TAT and CAT) in both academic training and applied practice settings. Other Thematic instruments, like the Roberts Apperception Test, Make-A-Picture-Story-Test, and the Children‟s Apperceptive Story-Telling Test (Schneider &Perney, 1990) have a limited research base and, thus, are not included in this analysis.

Proponents of projective assessment contend that Thematic tests provide rich idiographic material not only clinically but also as a robust source of research data in scholarly investigations (e.g., Basu, 2014; Blatt, 1975). In support of this view, Dana (1996, p. 203) concluded “The TAT continues to be used in assessment practice because of the potential richness of the protocol data for personality study.” Moreover, Thematic approaches seem particularly amenable in the assessment of children (e.g., Chandler, 2003). More recently, Weiner and Greene (2008)

 

 

argue that Thematic techniques can serve as a prodigious precursory tool in screening for psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Critics, like Ziskin (1995, pp. 866-870), counter that “The TAT is an extremely difficult technique to evaluate empirically.”

Scholarly research on Thematic tests, particularly the TAT, has been rather robust over the years. A keyword search (March 2016) of the database PsycINFO produced 930 article references and 200 dissertations. In an analysis on the prevalence of projective techniques in published research reported in key journals from 1947-1965, Crenshaw et al. (1968) found the TAT to be ranked 2nd in terms of investigatory interest over time, and even surpassed the Rorschach in the 1960- 1964 period.

Historical Context:

Graduate-level Training Settings:

From an historical perspective (i.e., prior to 1990), attitudes of mental health practitioners toward Thematic techniques remained quite positive; however, views of clinical faculty and internship directors toward some projective tests, while positive, have become more tepid over time (see Kolbe, 1985; Piotrowski 1999, 2015b for review; Rossini & Moretti, 1997). Early surveys, such as McCully (1965), reported rather positive attitudes of internship directors regarding the TAT, with 94% of respondents considering Thematic techniques as somewhat or very important. In a survey of academic clinical psychologists in APA- approved clinical training programs, Thelen et al. (1968) found that Thematic tests were considered the most important of the projective techniques to master, with 71 of respondents confirming that coverage of the TAT should be required coursework. About this time, Shemberg and Keeley (1970) detected a slight decrease in training in projective techniques in PhD clinical training programs. However, very positive attitudes toward diagnostic testing was reported by internship directors (Garfield & Kurtz, 1973); in fact, 93% of internship centers emphasized the TAT. During the 1980s, where attitudes of

academic faculty and internship directors toward projective tests were somewhat tempered, the TAT was still endorsed as important by 74% of academic clinical psychologists (Pruitt et al., 1985). Moreover, the TAT continued to be emphasized during internship training (see Durand et al., 1988). These positive attitudes on the part of faculty toward Thematic assessment reflected the importance attributed to diagnostic training at clinical practicum sites (see Craig & Horowitz, 1990). In support of these findings, in a national survey of practicing clinical psychologists, Wade and Baker (1977) found that nearly 30% recommended that clinical students learn the TAT. It must be noted, however, that, during this time, the CAT was not emphasized in clinical training (e.g., Piotrowski & Keller, 1984).

Mental Health Practice Settings:

Early national surveys on clinical test usage in practice settings found the TAT ranked 4th and the CAT in 38thplace (Sundberg, 1961). Hinkle et al. (1968), on data from 247 psychotherapists, found the TAT to be amongst the top tests used in private practice. In a nationwide survey of clinical agencies, Lubin et al. (1971) reported that the TAT ranked 7th and the CAT 14th. Gendreau (1975), in a study on psychological test usage in corrections in Canada, reported the TAT ranked 9th. Surveys of mental health practitioners in the 1970s corroborated the popularity of Thematic instruments with the TAT and CAT amongst the top 10 and top 15 tests, respectfully (see Brown & McGuire, 1976; Piotrowski & Keller, 1978). Emphasis in practice with Thematic approaches continued into the 1980s (Fee, Elkins, & Boyd, 1982; Harrison et al., 1988; Haynes & Peltier, 1983; Lubin, Larsen, &Matarazzo, 1984; Sweeney, Clarkin, &Fitzgiggon, 1987; Tuma& Pratt, 1982; Watkins et al., 1988). In fact, one survey found that 91% and 23% of practitioners recommended competency in the TAT and CAT, respectfully (Piotrowski, 1985). Quite revealing, surveys of practicing school psychologists (i.e., Goh et al., 1981) reported that both the TAT and CAT were frequently

used in the assessment of personality. Even clinicians with an anathema to projective techniques, such as behavior therapists, have been reported to rely on the TAT (Piotrowski & Keller, 1984). Interestingly, this popularity of the TAT was also evident overseas. Evers and Zaal (1982) reported that the TAT ranked 4th in test usage in The Netherlands. Based on test usage data from 383 Australian psychologists, Sharpley and Pain (1988) found the TAT to be the 8th „most valued‟ test and highly recommended for inclusion in graduate-level training.

Rationale for Current Study:

Since the early 1990s, the assessment community has witnessed a steady stream of rather disparaging commentary directed largely on the lack of psychometric credibility of individual projective methods, including Thematic techniques (see Lilienfeld et al., 2000; Smith & Dumont, 1995; Ziskin, 1995). Thus, based on this dramatic shift (commencing around 25 years ago) to expunge projective techniques from both training emphasis and clinical practice, it would be of interest to a) summarize survey data regarding coursework and training emphasis in Thematic tests in professional/graduate training programs since 1989, and b) examine the extent of professional usage of Thematic techniques in applied practice settings during this time frame.

Investigatory Design:

In order to appreciate historical trends on the scope of emphasis and usage of Thematic techniques in graduate-level training and practice/professional settings, the author utilized bibliometric analyses of the extant literature to identify survey-based studies. To that end, a systematic search of the database PsycINFO (published by the American Psychological Association) was conducted, as this research repository is considered the leading scholarly file of research in the social and behavioral sciences worldwide. Table 1 summarizes survey findings of both academic and applied settings on emphasis and usage

of Thematic tests since 1989. This analysis includes the 67 published studies on test usage that were identified in journal publications, based on academic/training and clinician/practitioner samples worldwide.

Findings:

First, response-rates of the reviewed studies varied widely; thus, the conclusions of the current analysis findings must be tempered by the unknown views of a sizeable percentage of non-responders from the samples under study. Thus, with a cautionary stance, the current analysis showed that, overall, based on data from both academic and practice settings over the past 25 years, the TAT has been emphasized or used to at least a

„moderate‟ degree in 43 of the 67 (64%) studies in this review. This popularity was more apparent in training or internship settings, where the TAT was found to be highly valued in coverage in 9 of the 16 studies (56%) compared to only 11 of the 51 studies (22%) of practitioners. In fact, 21 of the 51 studies (41%) of practice settings indicated sparse usage of the TAT. However,

„moderate‟ levels of TAT use were noted in

38% of the studies involving practitioners.

With regard to the Children‟s Apperception Test (CAT), reliance on the CAT was rather absent across all academic and practice settings. Many studies that found the TAT to be popular also reported sparse usage or emphasis on the CAT. This disuse of the CAT was even evident in surveys of child practitioners and school psychologists. Moreover, only a couple studies found moderate use of the Roberts Apperception Test. Interestingly, scant discussion on the neglect of children‟s Thematic tests was proffered by investigators in the literature reported in the current analysis.

In addition, this extensive review revealed that there has been a slight decline in enthusiasm for Thematic instruments by both graduate faculty and practitioners in recent years (see Peterson et al., 2014; Ready &Veague, 2014; Stedman et al., 2017). Moreover, the latest evidence (Mihura et al., 2016; Wright et al.,

2016) points to the fact that although there continues to be some reliance on performance-based testing, interest in Thematic tests appears to be waning (see Rabin et al., 2016; Ready et al., 2016).

Several other trends in practice or applied settings were noted. Thematic tests have been popular with clinical psychologists and professional counselors (e.g., Clark, 1995), but less so with forensic psychologists (Neal &Grisso, 2014), and largely neglected by neuropsychologists (see Rabin et al., 2005; Smith, 2010). In fact, studies regarding forensic mental health assessment, including survey data from outside the USA (Martin et al., 2001), indicate that projective tests are not relied upon by practitioners in most legal settings (McLauglin&Kan, 2014; Ryba et al., 2003). Furthermore, Thematic tests have, historically, had a central role in the assessment practices of school psychologists (e.g., Hughes et al., 2010; Hutton, 1992; Kennedy et al., 1994); however, recent surveys in the school psychology field indicate a slight de-emphasis on reliance of these evaluation tools, with the CAT showing the most decline in usage (e.g., Hojnoski et al., 2006; Shapiro &Heick, 2004).

Despite the popularity and emphasis with the TAT in academic training settings prior to 2008, empirically-based studies have found that TAT training in graduate education has been rather cursory and unstructured (Duffy, 1993). It must be noted that in the recent Mihura et al. (2016) study, survey objectives failed to elucidate the extent or depth of training in specific assessment approaches or tests. Moreover, academic coverage in clinical training with the TAT appears to be rather restricted to the seminal models proposed by Bellak and Murray (see Rossini & Moretti, 1997) and recent data point to a lack of instructional emphasis on TAT scoring protocols (see Mihura et al., 2016). The impact of this de-emphasis on future trends is uncertain. Hence, interested students may need to pursue educational opportunities with Thematic tests via nontraditional venues such as workshops and individualized instruction

from mentors. Noteworthy, there is a dearth of data on the status of Thematic techniques in graduate-level educational or training programs in countries outside the USA (see Piotrowski, 2015b for review). Future research needs to examine didactic issues and identify trends regarding assessment training, over time, at universities in nations worldwide (see Elosua&Iliescul, 2012; Raez de Ramirez, 1999).

Conclusion:

These findings, based on extensive survey data over time, point to the reality that a sizeable minority of faculty and mental health professionals have relied on Thematic assessment and have done so based largely on several key attributes of these techniques discussed in the assessment literature: notably, that Thematic techniques tend to be conducive in diagnostic assessment (Dana, 1996; Woolford et al., 2015; Wright et al., 2016), particularly in understanding and addressing stressors, social-emotional needs, and interpersonal challenges. In this context, Thematic methods may offer an integrative function within the multi-method assessment model (Flanagan & Motta, 2007; Hopwood & Bornstein, 2014; Riccio& Rodriguez, 2007). However, based on recent evidence (since 2008), there appears to be a diminution of didactic and practicum offerings in academic and internship programs in projective techniques; hence, the future status of the TAT in the assessment armamentarium appears precarious.

Historically, the current findings regarding Thematic tests attest to the popularity of and interest in projective assessment over the decades, as evidenced in coverage in scholarly books on psychological tests (e.g., Aronow, Weiss, &Reznikoff, 2013; Groth- Marnat, 2009; Harwood, Beutler, &Groth- Marnat,  2011;  Murstein,  1965;  Newmark,

1996; Rabin, 1986; Rapaport et al., 1968). This scholarship reflects the vast research landscape on projective techniques evident in the extant literature. However, future studies are needed to determine whether interest in

Thematic methods will expand beyond a narrow circle of enthusiasts, particularly as

competing assessment approaches and testing  instruments  emerge  in  the  field.

 

Table 1: Emphasis or Use of Thematic Tests in Training/Practice Settings across 67 Studies (1989-2017)
Study	Country	Sample	Findings
Piotrowski & Keller (1989)	USA	Test usage in 413 mental health facilities	Amongst the top 30 tests used, the TAT ranked 9th; the CAT 14th.
Tsoi&Sundber g (1989)	Hong Kong	Division of Clinical Psychology of the Hong Kong Psychological Society	The TAT ranked 4th.
Bubenzer et al. (1990)	USA	743 members of the American Association for Counseling & Development, primarily practitioners	The TAT ranked 7th in terms of usage but used only occasionally.
*Watkins et al. (1990)	USA	Data based on 56 directors of counseling psychology training programs	45% of these programs emphasized the TAT in coursework/training.
Archer et al. (1991)	USA	165 respondents who were either APA Division 12 members, Society for Personality Assessment members, and/or practitioners with a research interest in adolescent assessment	The TAT ranked very highly for inclusion in a „Standard‟ test battery, endorsed by 63% of respondents.
Butler et al. (1991)	USA	280 members of the International Neuropsychological Society	33% of respondents in neuropsychology use the TAT for „personality‟ assessment.
Ogawa & Piotrowski (1992)	Japan	Japanese Clinical psychologists	Although several projective tests were ranked highly, the TAT was not used frequently.
Hutton (1992)	USA	389 school psychologists (members of NASP); update on the Goh et al. (1981) study	For the area of personality assessment, the Roberts Apperception Test ranked #2; the CAT #3; the TAT 12th.
*Piotrowski &Zalewski (1993)	USA	A replication of the Piotrowski & Keller (1984) study; 80 Directors of both PhD and PsyD APA clinical psychology programs in 1991	80% of the programs suggested competency in the TAT; this was on par (85%) with findings of the 1984 survey. Only 10% of programs endorsed the CAT.
Pinkerman et al. (1993)	USA	Surveyed 126 psychologists in 37 juvenile/family courts on scope of testing practices of children under age 18	Projective tests were used frequently, including the TAT.
Kennedy et al. (1994)	USA	Practicing school psychologists	Overall, projective tests used frequently; TAT ranked #9; CAT #12.
Stinnett et al. (1994)	USA	Data analysis based on 123 members of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) in 1993	In social-emotional assessment, 29% use the TAT (ranked 11th); 15% use the CAT (ranked 19th).
Chan & Lee	Hong Kong	50 practicing psychologists	56% noted the TAT, ranked 12th; 38%

(1995)		in 1993	used the CAT, ranked 18th.
Watkins et al. (1995)	USA	412 APA members who were clinical psychologists	TAT used by 82% of practicing psychologists & ranked 5th overall; the CAT was used by 42% (ranked 16th); 90% felt that clinical students should gain competency in the TAT; however, only 22% endorsed the CAT in training & only 6% recommended competency in the Roberts Apperception Test.
Borum&Grisso (1995)	USA	102 forensic psychologists/psychiatrists	For psychologists, the TAT was relied upon by only 8% of respondents; for psychiatrists, 10%; CAT not mentioned.
*Wilson &Reschly (1996)	USA	Data, obtained in 1992, on assessment practices from 251 members of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP); and faculty in school psychology programs	For the practitioner sample, Thematic tests were not amongst the top 10 instruments; for faculty, the TAT was covered by 35% in coursework and by 54% in supervised training.
Lees-Haley et al. (1996)	USA	Forensic evaluation reports by 100 forensic neuropsychology experts	Only 6% of „neuropsychology‟ reports included use of TAT (ranked #39 test); CAT not listed.
*Rossini & Moretti (1997)	USA	50 Directors of APA- accredited clinical psychology training programs shared their views on coursework/coverage of the TAT	30 of these programs provided coverage of the TAT in graduate-level courses; Interpretations of TAT protocols by students were infrequently required; only about 15 programs offered practicum experiences with the TAT; surprisingly, book chapters on the TAT and journal articles were rarely required readings; thus, instruction on the TAT was found to be unstructured.
*Culross& Nelson (1997)	USA	Surveyed 63 instructors listed in NASP-approved graduate programs in school psychology on tests emphasized in personality assessment coursework	The TAT and CAT were taught in 71% and 52% of personality assessment courses, respectively.
Ackermann & Ackermann (1997)	USA	Practitioners in court-related custody evaluations	In a re-analysis of the findings, Hagen &Castagna (2001) found that the TAT was used in 16% of assessment reports of parents; The CAT was used in 17% of evaluations of children, the Roberts Apperception Test in 7%.
Frauenhoffer et al. (1998)	USA	Surveyed 487 mental health practitioners (psychologists, counselors, social workers)	For psychologists, 50% used the TAT and 26% the CAT; however, thematic tests were not popular with either social workers nor professional counselors.
Piotrowski et al. (1998)	USA	137 practitioners in National Register of Health Service providers in Psychology	Tests considered most important to practice: only 15% of psych. practitioners noted the TAT; CAT not recommended.
Muniz et al. (1999)	Spain, Portugal, & Latin	Test use by practicing psychologists	Overall, projective methods were quite popular; The TAT was ranked 10th, but more emphasized in Argentina than in

	America		Spain.
Boccaccini& Brodsky (1999)	USA	Diagnostic test usage in personal injury cases by 80 practicing forensic psychologists	Although only 9% used the TAT, 67% of respondents endorsed the TAT due to „acceptance within the field‟; 50% based on „research support‟.
*Piotrowski & Belter (1999)	USA	Extent of graduate-level assessment curriculum was reported by training directors from 84 APA-approved internship settings	76% of these internship sites provided training on TAT; 23% on the Roberts Apperception Test; however, only 10% of these directors considered the TAT essential for practice.
Camara et al. (2000)	USA	179 practitioners, mostly clinical psychologists regarding test usage	Neuropsychologists shunned thematic tests; but clinical psychologists valued the TAT (ranked 6th) and, to a lesser degree, the CAT (16th).
Archer & Newsom (2000)	USA	346 psychologists, working with adolescents	The TAT (ranked #4) was used by 63% of respondents; Roberts Apperception Test used by 40% (ranked #19); Interestingly, CAT not listed amongst top 30 test.
*Stedman et al. (2000)	USA	324 internship directors across a variety of mental health settings	Directors had favorable attitudes for the TAT and picture-story tests to be included in „integrated‟ assessment.
Boothby & Clements (2000)	USA	Correctional (prison) psychologists	Thematic tests were not amongst the top 20 assessment instruments.
*Clemence& Handler (2001)	USA	Surveyed 382 internship settings on use and training of psychological tests	Internship directors supported graduate- level preparation in projective assessment; 56% recommended competency and inclusion for the TAT in „Testing battery‟.
Muniz et al. (2001)	European (Spain, UK, Holland, Slovenia, Croatia, Belgium)	3,455 professional psychologists use of psychological tests	In 5 of the 6 countries, projective tests were not popular; in Belgium, the TAT and CAT were noted by 16%, and 10% of professionals.
Luiselli et al. (2001)	USA	Assessment for autism reported by 100 practitioners in national service centers for developmental disabilities in 30 states	27% of service centers use the TAT in the treatment of autism.
*Belter & Piotrowski (2001)	USA	Survey data on 82 directors of APA-approved doctoral clinical/professional psychology training programs on assessment curriculum	Nearly 60% of the programs required a specific course on projective testing; The TAT was amongst the most emphasized (by 70% of directors).
*Childs &Eyde (2002)	USA	Course syllabi data, from 84 APA clinical psychology programs, determined coverage of projective assessment techniques	71% of programs indicated that the TAT should be a key component in the assessment curriculum.
Cashel (2002)	USA	162 child & adolescent practitioners in outpatient,	56% of respondents use the TAT (ranked 19th) to some degree; 48% use

		hospital and school settings	the CAT; 34% use the Roberts Apperception Test.
*Stedman et al. (2002)	USA	Based on survey data from 334 psychology interns, determined extent of pre- internship assessment report writing experiences	Results showed that clinical students met or exceeded most expectations of internship training directors by producing a median of 18 integrated testing reports; however, reports including the TAT were a few (M=1.5).
Bow et al. (2002)	USA	84 psychologists reported on assessment practices regarding sexual abuse in child custody cases	The TAT was used in 15% of assessments of accusing parents and alleged perpetrators.
Demaray et al. (2003)	USA	Surveyed over 316 school psychologists on assessment practices in ADHD	Although 30% supported projective assessment, less than 5% noted the CAT, TAT, or Roberts test.
Lally (2003)	USA	64 Diplomate-status forensic psychologists, test use in court-related evaluations	TAT was deemed „unacceptable‟ by 77% of sample across several forensic domains.
Ryba et al. (2003)	USA	Psychologists‟ test usage in juvenile competency to stand trial evaluations	Projective tests were infrequently employed; only 12% reported using the TAT.
Shapiro &Heick (2004)	USA	Determined assessment practices of 648 school psychologists (NASP members)	The TAT was used occasionally across recent cases involving psychological assessment issues.
Echemendia& Harris (2004)	USA	Test use practices of 911 neuropsychologists	No Projective techniques were amongst top tests used.
Anderson &Paulosky (2004)	USA	Diagnostic assessment practices of 95 „eating disorder‟ specialists	Although 75% of the respondents rely on self-report measures, only 10% use any projective techniques.
Rabin et al. (2005)	USA/ Canada	Assessment practices of 747 clinical neuropsychologists	Only the Rorschach was amongst the top 40 tests in neuropsychological assessment.
de Oliveira et al. (2005)	Brazil	35 professional psychologists	CAT-Human, used by 57%, ranked #1; TAT infrequently emphasized.
Hojnoski et al. (2006)	USA	170 school psychologists reported use of projective tests	TAT used by 31% of respondents, mostly for diagnostic purposes & treatment planning; 16% use the CAT.
Archer et al. (2006)	USA	152 forensic psychologists‟ use of projective techniques in court-related assessments	54% of respondents (n=54) use the TAT at least „occasionally‟ in forensic evaluations of adults; The CAT was not popular in child forensic assessment.
Koonce (2007)	USA	246 NASP members were surveyed on selection of tests in ADHD assessment	For direction for selection of ADHD test battery, none of the „thematic‟ tests were used.
Herzberg &Mattar (2008)	Brazil	Clinical psychology faculty use of projective tests in practice, University of Sao Paulo	TAT ranked #1, used by 73% of faculty; the CAT-Human figures by 15%.
Madaus et al. (2009)	USA	Assessment practices reported by 164 „special	Apparently, projective techniques are not used in the assessment of social-

		education‟ directors in school districts in 5 northeastern states	emotional behavior in „special education‟ milieu.
Ogawa et al. (2010)	Japan	237 Japanese psychologists in practice	TAT not listed in the top 20 tests used in Japan in 2010; in the prior 2004 survey, TAT used only by 8% of sample.
Smith et al. (2010)	USA	404 members of the International Neuropsychological Society or National Academy of Neuropsychology surveyed on personality assessment practices	The TAT was occasionally used by about 30% of the sample in personality assessment, but not highly ranked.
Donoso et al. (2010)	USA	150 professionals who conduct vocational rehabilitation evaluations	Overall, projective techniques were relied upon infrequently; TAT was used by 28% of respondents, ranked #18.
Raez (2011)	Peru	University psychologists in Lima, and members of the Peru Society of Rorschach & Projective Methods	92% of the sample use projective techniques; 43% rely on TAT; 41% on CAT.
Ackermann &Pritzl (2011)	USA	213 forensic psychologists surveyed on tests used with parents in child custody evaluations	29% of the sample use the TAT in assessment of parents.
Evers et al. (2012)	17 European countries	Study conducted in 2009; sample included 12,606 professional psychologists regarding testing practices; data analysis based on 400 respondents	Projective tests were not ranked highly in 6 countries (Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK, Croatia, Germany). Turkey was the only European country with TAT usage, but rather infrequently, 7%.
*Neukrug et al. (2013)	USA	Based on survey data from 210 counselor educators across the U.S., this study examined graduate-level coverage of assessment instruments by instructors	93% of instructors report teaching emphasis with the TAT, which was ranked 12th.
Peterson et al. (2014)	USA	926 counselors (clinical mental health, school, occupational) rated tests of all types regarding usage	Amongst a copious set of testing instruments, the TAT seems to be used moderately (ranked 40th); the CAT occasionally (ranked 70th).
Neal &Grisso (2014)	International sample: USA (45%), Canada (7%), Europe (3%), Australia- New Zealand (4%)	434 forensic examiners of professional organizations	Across a variety of forensic/legal domains, a myriad of testing instruments was used; however, the only projective test noted was the Rorschach.
*Ready &Veague (2014)	USA	Compared training in psychological assessment across 3 training models (Clinical-Science, Scientist-	Although the response-rate was rather low (33%), no projective tests ranked in the top 10; only practitioner-scholar programs offer limited coverage on

		Practitioner, Practitioner- Scholar) in APA-Accredited programs	projective techniques; younger faculty express little interest or competency in teaching specific projective techniques.
Sotelo- Dynega& Dixon (2014)	USA	Cognitive assessment practices of 323 school psychologists	A variety of IQ, achievement tests, and educational measures were popular; no projective tests were noted.
Wechsler et al. (2014)	Iberian/Latin -American countries	Test development & usage in Portugal, Spain, Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil	Projective tests very popular in Venezuela; Rorschach somewhat popular in Brazil and Argentina; Spain and Portugal indicated low usage of projective tests. Thematic tests are not amongst the top tests used by practitioners in any of these countries.
Rabin et al. (2016)	USA & Canada	Testing practices of 512 neuropsychologists; members of INS and NAN	Among Top tests for „personality assessment‟; TAT ranked 14th, but used infrequently (1%).
*Ready et al. (2016)	USA & Canada	Views of Directors of internship settings on pre- internship preparation in assessment; Data based on 236 APPIC sites	Overall, the majority of directors indicated that professional academic programs do not adequately prepare students for assessment activities on internship; 28% of sites offer training in the TAT.
Wright et al. (2016)	USA	279 members of APA in practice, with an interest in Assessment; Data based on low response rate (17%)	49% indicated use of projective techniques other than the Rorschach (TAT data not specifically reported); 54% use the Rorschach.
*Mihura et al. (2016)	USA	Of 244 APA-accredited doctoral clinical psychology programs, 83 usable surveys were analyzed	The survey, in a general fashion, inquired about „coverage‟ in assessment courses and practicum; authors concluded that instruction emphasized “breadth at the expense of depth”; TAT „covered‟ in 63% of programs; only 8 programs (15%) taught formal coding for the TAT.
*Stedman et al. (2017)	USA	APPIC internship programs reported on „Assessment‟ training offered and on pre- internship expectations of testing competency	72% of programs (adult focused) desire pre-internship training in assessment; in mixed-programs (adults/children), 35% offer training in „Story‟ techniques.
Note. Studies (n=16) marked with asterisk (*) focused on graduate/internship training.

References:

Ackerman, M.J., & Ackerman, M.C. (1997). Custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 137-145.

Ackerman, M.J., &Pritzl, T.B. (2011). Child custody evaluation practices: A 20-year follow-up. Family Court Review, 49(3), 618-628.

Anderson, D.A., &Paulosky, C.A. (2004). A survey of the use of assessment instruments by eating disorder professionals in clinical practice. Eating & Weight Disorders, 9(3), 238-241.

 

Anderson, T.K., Cancelli, A., &Kratochwill, T.R. (1984). Self-reported assessment practices of school psychologists: Implications for training and practice. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 17- 29.

Archer, R.P., Buffington-Vollum, J.K., Stredny, R.V., & Handel, R.W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84-94.

Archer, R.P., Maruish, M., Imhof, E.A., & Piotrowski, C. (1991). Psychological test usage with adolescent

clients: 1990 survey findings. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 247-252.

Archer, R.P., & Newsom, C.R. (2000). Psychological test usage with adolescent clients: Survey update. Assessment, 7(3), 227-235.

Aronow, E., Weiss, K.A., &Reznikoff, M. (2013). A practical guide to the Thematic Apperception Test: The TAT in clinical practice. New York: Bruner-Routledge.

Bartram, D., & Coyne, I. (1998). Variations in national patterns of testing and test use: The ITC/EFPA international survey. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 249-260.

Basu, J. (2014). Psychologists‟ ambivalence toward ambiguity: Relocating the projective test debate for multiple interpretative hypotheses. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 21, 25-36.

Belter, R.W., & Piotrowski, C. (2001).Current status of doctoral-level training in psychological testing.Jour. of Clin. Psych., 57, 717-726.

Belter, R.W., Piotrowski, C. (1999). Current status of master‟s-level training in psychological assessment. Journal of Psychological Practice, 5(1), 1-5.

Beutler, L.E., Williams, R.E., Wakefield, P.J., &Entwistle,

S.R. (1995).Bridging scientist and practitioner perspectives in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 50, 984-994.

Blatt, S.J. (1975). The validity of projective techniques and their research and clinical contribution. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 327-343.

Boccaccini, M.T., & Brodsky, S.L. (1999).Diagnostic test usage by forensic psychologists in emotional injury cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 253-259.

Boothby, J.L., & Clements, C.B. (2000).A national survey of correctional psychologists. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 716-732.

Borum, R., &Grisso, T. (1995).Psychological test use in criminal forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 465-473.

Bow, J.N., Quinnell, F.A., Zaroff, M., &Assemany, A. (2002).Assessment of sexual abuse allegations in child custody cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 566-575.

Brown, W.R., & McGuire, J.M. (1976). Current psychological assessment practices. Professional Psychology, 7, 475-484.

Bubenzer, D.L., Zimpfer, D.G., &Mahrle, C.L. (1990).Standardized individual appraisal in agency and private practice: A survey. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 12, 51-66.

Butcher, J.N. (2006). Assessment in clinical psychology: A perspective on the past, present challenges, and future prospects. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13(3), 205-209.

Butler, M., Retzlaff, P., &Vanderploeg, R. (1991).Neuropsychological   test   usage.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22(6), 510-512.

Camara, W.J., Nathan, J.S., & Puente, A.E. (2000). Psychological test usage: Implications in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 141-154.

Cashel, M.L. (2002). Child and adolescent psychological assessment: Current clinical practices and the impact of managed care. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(5), 446-

453.

Chan, D.W., & Lee, H.B. (1995).Patterns of psychological test usage in Hong Kong in 1993. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 292-297. Chandler, L.A. (2003). The projective hypothesis and the development of projective techniques for children.

In C.R. Reynolds & R.W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Personality, behavior, and context (2nd ed., pp. 51-65). New York: Guilford Press.

Childs, R., &Eyde, L. (2002). Assessment training in clinical psychology doctoral programs: What should we teach? What do we teach? Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 130-144.

Clark, A.J. (1995). Projective techniques in the counseling process. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73(3), 311-316.

Clemence, A., & Handler, L. (2001). Psychological assessment on internship: A survey of training directors and their expectations for students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 18-47.

Craig, R.J., & Horowitz, M. (1990).Current utilization of psychological tests at diagnostic practicum sites.The Clini.Psychst, 43, 29-36.

Crenshaw, D.A., Bohn, S., Hoffman, M.R., Matheus, J.M., & Offenbach, S.G. (1968). The use of projective methods in research: 1947-1965. Journal of Projective Techniques & Personality Assessment, 32(1), 3-9.

Culross, R.R., & Nelson, S. (1997). Training in personality assessment in specialist-level school psychology programs. Psychological Reports, 81, 119-124.

Dana, R.H. (1996). The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). In C.S. Newmark (Ed.), Major psychological assessment instruments (2nd ed., pp. 166-205). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Demaray, M.K., Schaefer, K., & Delong, L.K. (2003). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A national survey of training and current assessment practices in the schools. Psychology in the Schools, 40(6), 583-597.

de Oliveira, K.L., Noronha, A.P., Dantas, M.A., & Santarem, E.M. (2005). The use of psychological techniques and instruments for behavioral psychologists.PsicologiaemEstido, Maringa, 10(1), 127-135.

Donoso, O.A., Hernandez, B., &Horin, E.V. (2010).Use of psychological tests within vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 32, 191-200.

Duffy, J.N. (1993). Utility of the Thematic Apperception Test as an aid to personality assessment.Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 1711.

Dupree, J.L., &Prevatt, F. (2003).Projective storytelling techniques. In C.R. Reynolds & R.W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Personality, behavior, and context (2nd ed., pp. 66-90). NY: Guilford Press.

Durand, V., Blanchard, E., & Mindell, J. (1988). Training in projective testing: Survey of clinical training directors and internship directors. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 236-238. Echemendia, R.J., & Harris, J.G. (2004). Neuropsychological test use with Hispanic/Latino populations in the U.S.: Part II of a national

survey. Applied Neuropsychology, 11, 4-12.

Elosua, P., & Iliescu, D. (2012). Tests in Europe: Where we are and where we should go. International Journal of Testing, 12, 157-175.

Evers, A., Muniz, J., Bartram, D., et al. (2012). Testing practices in the 21st century: Developments and European psychologists‟ opinions. European Psychologist, 17(4), 300-319.

Evers, A., &Zaal, J.N. (1982).Trends in test use in The Netherlands. International Review of Applied Psychology, 31, 35-53.

Fee, A.F., Elkins, G.R., & Boyd, L. (1982). Testing and counseling psychologists: Current practices and implications for training. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 116-118.

Fisher, S. (1967). Projective methodologies. Annual Review of Psychology, 18, 165-191.

Flanagan, R., & Motta, R.W. (2007). Figure drawings: A popular method. Psychology in the Schools, 44(3), 257-270.

Frank, L. (1948). Projective methods. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

Frauenhoffer, D., Ross, M.J., Gfeller, J., Searight, H.R., & Piotrowski, C. (1998). Psychological test usage among licensed mental health practitioners: A multidisciplinary survey. Journal of Psychological Practice, 4, 28-33.

Garb, H.N., Wood, J.M., Lilienfeld, S.O., &Nezworski,

M.T. (2002). Effective use of projective techniques in clinical practice: Let the data help with selection and interpretation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 454-463.

Garfield, S.L., & Kurtz, R.M. (1973). Attitudes toward training in diagnostic testing: A survey of directors of internship training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 350-355.

Gendreau, P. (1975). Psychological test usage in corrections. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, 17(3), 215-220.

Goh, D.S., Teslow, C.J., & Fuller, G.B. (1981).The practice of psychological assessment among school psychologists. Professional Psychology, 12, 696-706.

Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of personality assessment (5thed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hagen, M.A., &Castagna, N. (2001). The real numbers: Psychological testing in custody evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 269-271.

Handler, L., &Hilsenroth, M. (Eds.).(1998). Teaching and learning personality assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Handler, L., & Smith, J.D. (2013). Education and training in psychology assessment. In J.R. Graham, J.A. Naglieri, & I.B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 10: Assessment psychology (2nd ed., 211-238). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Harrison, P.L., Kaufman, A.S., Hickman, J.A., & Kaufman,

N.L. (1988). A survey of tests used for adult assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, 188-198.

Harwood, T.M., Beutler, L.E., &Groth-Marnat, G. (2011). Integrative assessment of adult personality (3rded.). New York: Guilford Press.

Haynes, J.P., & Peltier, J. (1983). Psychological assessment practices in juvenile forensic settings. Psychological Reports, 52, 759-762.

Herzberg, E., &Mattar, A. (2008). Clinical instruments used in the department of clinical psychology of USP: 10 years later. Boletim de Psicologia, 58, 1-

11.

Hinkle, J.E., Nelson, S.E., & Miller, D. (1968).Psychological test usage by psychologist psychotherapists in private practice. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(4), 210-213.

Hopwood, C.J., & Bornstein, R.F. (Eds.).(2014). Multimethod clinical assessment. New York: Guilford Press.

Hojnoski, R.L., Morrison, R., Brown, M., & Matthews, W.J. (2006). Projective test use among school psychologists: A survey and critique. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 145-159.

Hughes, T.L., McGoey, K.E., & Owen, P. (2010).The importance of personality assessment in school psychology training programs. In E. Garcia- Vasquez, T.D. Crespi, & C.A. Riccio (Eds.), Handbook of education, training, and supervision of school psychologists in school and community, Vol. 1: Foundations of professional practice (pp. 185-211). New York: Routledge.

Hutton, J.B., Dubes, R., Muir, S. (1992). Assessment practices of school psychologists: Ten years later. School Psychology Review, 21, 271-284.

Ivnik, R.J. (1977). Uncertain status of psychological tests in clinical psychology. Professional Psychology, 8(2), 206-213.

Keddy, P., & Piotrowski, C. (1992).Testing in psychotherapy practice: Literature review survey, and commentary. Journal of Training & Practice in Professional Psychology, 6(1), 30-39.

Keiser, R.E., & Prather, E.N. (1990). What is the TAT? A review of ten years of research. Jr. of Personality Assessment, 55, 800-803.

Kennedy, M.L., Faust, D., Willis, W.G., & Piotrowski, C. (1994). Social-emotional assessment practices in school psychology. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 228-240.

Klopfer, W.G., &Taulbee, E.S. (1976).Projective tests.

Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 543-567.

Kolbe, K., Shemberg, K., & Leventhal, D. (1985).University training in psychodiagnostics and psychotherapy.The Clini.Psyst, 38, 59-61.

Koonce, D.A. (2007). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessment practices by practicing school psychologists.   Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(4), 319-333.

Lally, S.J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 491-498.

Lees-Haley, P.R., Smith, H., Williams, C.W., & Dunn, J.T. (1996). Forensic neuropsychological test usage: An empirical survey. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11(1), 45-51.

Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., &Lohr, J.M. (2015). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (2nded.). New York: Guilford Press.

Lilienfeld, S.O., Wood, J.M., & Garb, H.N. (2000).The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27-66.

Lubin, B., Larsen, R.M., &Matarazzo, J.D. (1984), Patterns of psychological test usage in the United States: 1935-1982. American Psychologist, 39,

451-454.

Lubin, B., Wallace & Payne (1971). Patterns of psychological test use in the United States: 1935- 1969. Profesal. Psychology, 2, 70-74.

Luiselli, J.K., Campbell, S., Cannon, B., et al. (2001). Assessment instruments used in the education and treatment of persons with autism: Brief report of a survey of national service centers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 389-398.

Madaus, J., Rinaldi, C., Bigaj, S., &Chafouleas, S.M. (2009). An examination of current assessment practices in northeastern school districts. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(2), 86-

93.

Martin, M., Allan, A., & Allan, M.M. (2001).The use of psychological tests by Australian psychologists who do assessments for the courts. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 77-82.

McCully, R.S. (1965). Current attitudes about projective techniques in APA-approved internship training centers. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 29(3), 271-280.

McGrath, R.E., & Carroll, E.J. (2012).The current status of “projective tests”. In H. Cooper et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology,  Vol.  1:  Foundations,  planning,

measures, and psychometrics (pp. 329-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McLaughlin, J.L., &Kan, L.Y. (2014). Test usage in four common types of forensic mental health assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(2), 128-135.

Meyer. G.J., Finn, S.E., Eyde, L.D, et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56(2), 128-165.

Mihura, J.L., Roy, M., &Graceffo, R.A. (2016).Psychological assessment training in clinical psychology doctoral programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(6), 745-754.

Miller, D.N., & Nickerson, A.B. (2007).Projective techniques and the school-based assessment of childhood internalizing disorders. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 14, 48- 58.

Muniz, J., Bartram, D., Evers, A., et al. (2001). Testing practices in European countries. European J. of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 201-211.

Muniz, J., Prieto, G., Almeida, L., & Bartram, D. (1999). Test use in Spain, Portugal and Latin American countries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15(2), 151-157.

Murstein, B.I. (1965). Handbook of projective techniques.

Oxford, UK: Basic Books.

Neal, T., &Grisso, T. (2014). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1406-1421.

Neukrug, E., Peterson, C.H., Bonner, M., & Lomas, G. (2013).A national survey of assessment instruments taught by counselor educators. Counselor Education & Supervision, 52, 207-219. Newmark, C.S. (1996). Major psychological assessment instruments (2nded.). Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Ogawa, T., et al. (2010). Psychological testing practices in Japan: Comparisons between 2010, 2004, and 1986. Paper presented at the Japanese Psychological Association meeting (for full report contact: ogawa.toshiki.ke@u.tsukuba.ac.jp).

Ogawa, T., & Piotrowski, C. (1992). Clinical psychological test usage in Japan: A comparative study with a survey in the U.S.A. Tsukuba Psychological Research, 14, 151-158.

Peterson, C.H., Lomas, G.I., Neukrug, E.S., & Bonner,

M.W. (2014). Assessment use by counselors in the United States: Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 90-99.

Pinkerman, J.E., Haynes, J.P., & Keiser, T. (1993).Characteristics of psychological practice in juvenile court clinics. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 11(2), 3-12.

Piotrowski, C. (2016). Bender-Gestalt Test usage worldwide: A review of 30 practice-based studies.

SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 23(2), 73-81.

Piotrowski, C. (2015a). Projective techniques usage worldwide: A review of applied settings 1995- 2015. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 41(3), 9-19.

Piotrowski, C. (2015b). Clinical instruction on projective techniques in the USA: A review of academic training settings 1995-2014. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 22(2), 83-92.

Piotrowski, C. (2015c). On the decline of projective techniques in professional psychology training. North American Journal of Psychology, 17(2), 259-265.

Piotrowski, C. (2007). Forensic psychological testing as a function of affiliation and organizational setting. Organization Development Journal, 25(1), 94-98.

Piotrowski, C. (1999). Assessment practices in the era of managed care: Current status and future directions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 787-796.

Piotrowski, C. (1985). Clinical assessment: Attitudes of the Society for Personality Assessment membership. Southern Psychologist, 2(4), 80-83.

Piotrowski, C. (1984). The status of projective techniques.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 1495-1502.

Piotrowski, C., & Belter, R.W. (1999). Internship training in psychological assessment: Has managed care had an impact? Assessment, 6(4), 381-389.

Piotrowski, C., Belter, R.W., & Keller, J.W. (1998). The impact of “Managed Care” on the practice of psychological testing: Preliminary findings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 441-447.

Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1992). Psychological testing in applied settings: A literature review from 1982-1992. Journal of Training & Practice in Professional Psychology, 6(2), 74-82.

Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1989). Psychological testing in outpatient mental health facilities: A national survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20, 423-425.

Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1989).Use of assessment in mental health clinics and services.Psychological Reports, 64, 1298.

Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1984).Psychodiagnostic testing in APA-approved clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 450-456.

Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1984).Attitudes toward clinical assessment by members of the AABT. Psychological Reports, 55, 831-838.

Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1978).Psychological test usage in southeastern outpatient mental health facilities in 1975. Professional Psychology, 9, 63-

67.

Piotrowski, C., Keller, J.W., & Ogawa, T. (1993). Projective techniques: An international perspective. Psychological Reports, 72, 179-182.

Piotrowski, C., &Zalewski, C. (1993).Training in psychodiagnostic testing in APA-Approved PsyD

and PhD clinical psychology programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61(2), 394-405.

Pruitt, J.A., Smith, M., Thelen, M.H., &Lubin, B. (1985). Attitudes of academic clinical psychologists toward projective techniques: 1968-1983. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 781-788.

Rabin, L.A. (1986). Projective techniques for adolescents and children. New York: Springer.

Rabin, L.A., Paolillo, E., & Barr, W.B. (2016). Stability in test-usage practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the U.S. and Canada over a 10-year period. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31, 206-230.

Rabin, L., Barr, W.B., & Burton, M. (2005). Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: A survey of INS, NAN, and APA Division 40 members. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 33-65.

Raez de Ramirez, M. (2011).Latin-American perspectives on projective techniques, Rorschach diagnostics, and evaluation of personality. Data based on Symposium presented by the author: Lima, Peru.

Raez de Ramirez, M. (1999).The present situation about the teaching of the Rorschach and other projective tests in Peru.Revista de Psicologia, 17(2), 147-167.

Rapaport, D., Gill, M.M., & Schafer, R. (1968). Diagnostic psychological testing (rev. ed.). New York: International Universities Press.

Ready, R.E., Santorelli, G.D., Lundquist, T.S., & Romano,

F.M. (2016).Psychology internship directors‟ perceptions of pre-internship training preparation in assessment. North American Journal of Psychology, 18(2), 317-334.

Ready, R.E., &Veague, H.B. (2014). Training in psychological assessment: Current practices of clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 278-282.

Retzlaff, P. (1992). Professional training in psychological testing: New teachers and new tests. Journal of Training & Practice in Professional Psychology, 6(1), 45-50.

Reynolds, W.M. (1979). Psychological tests: Clinical usage versus psychometric quality. Professional Psychology, 10, 324-329.

Riccio, C.A., & Rodriguez, O.L. (2007). Integration of psychological assessment approaches in school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 44(3), 243-255.

Rossini, E.D., & Moretti, R.J. (1997). Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) interpretation: Practice recommendations from a survey of clinical psychology doctoral programs accredited by the APA. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 393-398.

Ryba, N.L., Cooper, V.G., & Zapf, P.A. (2003). Juvenile competence to stand trial evaluations: A survey of current practices and test usage among psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(5), 499-507.

Schneider, M.F., &Perney, J. (1990).Development of the Children‟s Apperceptive Story-Telling Test. Psychcal Assent, 2(2), 179-185.

Shapiro, E.S., &Heick, P.F. (2004). School psychologist assessment practices in the evaluation of students referred for social/behavioral/emotional problems. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 551- 561.

Sharpley, C.F., & Pain, M.D. (1988).Psychological test usage in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 23(3), 361-369.

Shemberg, K., & Keeley, S. (1970). Psychodiagnostic training in the academic setting: Past and present. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 205-211.

Smith, D., & Dumont, F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the Draw-A- Person test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 298-303.

Smith, S.R., Gorske, T., Wiggins, C., & Little, J.A. (2010).Personality assessment use by clinical neuropsychologists. International Journal of Testing, 10, 6-20.

Sotelo-Dynega, M., & Dixon, S.G. (2014). Cognitive assessment practices: A survey of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 51(10), 1031-1045.

Stedman, J.M., et al. (2017). Availability of training in psychological assessment at internship sites.Journal of Training and Education in Professional Psychology, in press.

Stedman, J.M., Hatch, J.P., &Schoenfeld, L.S. (2002). Pre-internship preparation of clinical and counseling students in psychological testing, psychotherapy, and supervision: Their readiness for medical school and non-medical school internships. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 9, 267-271.

Stedman, J.M., Hatch, J.P., &Schoenfeld, L.S. (2000). Pre-internship preparation in psychological testing and psychotherapy: What internship directors say they expect. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 321-326.

Stinnett, T.A., Havey, J.M., &Oehler-Stinnett, J. (1994). Current test usage by practicing school psychologists: A national survey. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 331-350.

Sundberg, N. (1961). The practice of psychological testing in clinical services in the United States. American Psychologist, 16, 79-83.

Sweeney, J.A., Clarkin, J.F., & Fitzgibbon, M.L. (1987).Current practice of psychological assessment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 377-380.

Swensen, C. (1968). Empirical evaluations of human figure drawings: 1957-1966. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 20-44.

Thelen, M.H., Varble, D.L., & Johnson, J. (1968).Attitudes of  academic  clinical  psychologists  toward

projective techniques. American Psychologist, 23, 517-521.

Tsoi, M.M., &Sundberg, N.D. (1989).Patterns of psychological test use in Hong Kong. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20, 248-250.

Tuma, J.M., & Pratt, J. (1982). Clinical child psychology practice and training: A survey. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 11, 27-34.

Vukovich, D.H. (1983). The use of projective assessment by school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 12, 358-364.

Wade, T.C., & Baker, T.B. (1977). Opinions and use of psychological tests: A survey of clinical psychologists. American Psychologist, 32, 874-

882.

Watkins, C.E., Campbell, V.L., & Manus, M. (1990).Personality assessment training in counseling psychology programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 380-383.

Watkins, C.E., Campbell, V.L., & McGregor, P. (1988). Counseling psychologists‟ use of and opinions about psychological tests: A contemporary perspective. The Counseling Psychologist, 16, 476-486.

Watkins, C.E., Campbell, V.L., Nieberding, R., & Hallmark, R. (1995).Contemporary practice of psychological assessment by clinical psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 54-60.

Wechsler, S.M., Oakland, T., Leon, C., et al. (2014). Test development and use in five Iberian Latin American countries. International Journal of Psychology, 49(4), 233-239.

Weiner, I.B., & Greene, R.L. (2008).Handbook of personality assessment. New York: Wiley.

Wilson, M.S., &Reschly, D.J. (1996).Assessment in school psychology training and practice. School Psychology Review, 25(1), 9-23.

Wood, J.M., Garb, H.N., Lilienfeld, S.O., &Nezworski,

M.T. (2002).Clinical assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 519-543.

Woolford, J., Patterson, T., Macleod, E., Hobbs, L., & Hayne, H. (2015). Drawing helps children to talk about their presenting problems during a mental health assessment. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 20, 68-83.

Wright, C.V., Beattie, S.G., Galper, D.I., et al. (2016). Assessment practices of professional psychologists: Results of a national survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47, 236-249.

Ziskin, J. (1995). Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony, Vol. 2 (5th ed., Challenging personality testing: The Rorschach & other projective methods, pp. 866-870). Los Angeles, CA: Law and Psychology Press.