Projective Techniques in Research: A Brief History and Current Update

        It is an interesting observation that of all the assessment methods, Projective Techniques seem to attract the predominance of rather heated criticism from the academic community (see Lilienfeld, 2000, for review). These criticisms center on lack of psychometric credibility, with the conclusion that such measures should not be used in clinical practice or in graduate training (Benson et al., 2019). In order to provide an objective evaluation regarding this onslaught of scholarly attacks, it would be informative to study the issue based on an objective analysis backed by data from scientific publications. One avenue to such an analysis is to conduct an empirically based bibliometric review of the extant literature (not on pro or con arguments) with a focus on actual use of and reliance on measures/tests by researchers which comprise investigatory designs reported in scholarly research. Such a study of the extant literature should provide a lucid picture regarding the utility of projective measures/assessment in the mental health field, across both basic and applied research.

        Historically, several studies have reported on research trends regarding select projective techniques. Sundberg (1954), in an analysis of references citations in the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMY), found that the Rorschach and TAT ranked among the top 4 cited psychological tests from 1937-1951. Reynolds and Sundberg (1976) extended this analysis of the MMY through 1971 and reported that references for the Rorschach and TAT were actually increasing from 1940-1971. However, Polyson and colleagues (1985, 1986), in a bibliometric analysis of PsycINFO, found that through the mid-1980s, the volume of references on the TAT was declining whereas citations for the Rorschach saw a resurgence in the published research literature. Thus, a more updated bibliographic analysis of projective tests seems prudent.

        To that end, I report the results of a bibliometric exercise based on a ‘Keyword’ search of specific projective tests noted in the ‘Abstracts’ of references in the database PsycINFO. In order to gauge usage of the contemporary literature, the search was limited to research indexed over the past decade (2011-2021). Hence, this approach reflects the recent body of scholarship. (Noteworthy, the general terms ‘Projective Techniques or Projective Tests’, during this time frame, produced the following bibliographic output: 238 journal articles, 57 books, and 22 dissertations).

        The results of this analysis are reported in Table 1. Although research attention on the Rorschach is rather evident, all the other major projective measures seem well represented in the literature. Moreover, books and textbooks, as well as book chapters, on almost all of these tests are readily available. Noteworthy, current academic and clinical interest in projective techniques is evident based on the production of primary research conducted and reported in dissertations. In addition to clinical case studies, research designs represent methodologies found in most scientific fields, i.e., quantitative, qualitative, literature reviews, and longitudinal approaches.

        Based on the results of this bibliometric exercise, one can conclude that although projective measures are not as prominent in the research literature as objective, self-report evaluation methods, projective tests have been and continue to be acceptable assessment methods based on usage by researchers in scientific investigations. Thus, I would argue that projective tests are not moribund (see Piotrowski, 2019), although these methods have admittedly fallen in stature from their high perch of clinical prominence decades ago (see Kennedy et al., 1994; Louttit & Browne, 1947; Lubin et al., 1984, 1986; Piotrowski & Keller, 1984, 1989; Sundberg, 1961). Moreover, projective techniques have always had a presence overseas (see Piotrowski, 2015a; Piotrowski et al., 1993), and their international popularity in the research literature is evident to this present day, particularly in countries such as India, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, and China (e.g., Aoki & Kogayu, 2022; Kato & Suzuki, 2015; Khromov & Dubey, 2016; Navarro et al., 2020; Verdon

02: Piotrowskiet al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2015). Undoubtedly, the continued presence of projective techniques in scholarly research serves as an impetus for their continued use not only in clinical practice (e.g., Frauenhoffer et al., 1998; Wright et al., 2017), but also in professional training (Piotrowski, 2015b).

Table 1. Number of References in PsycINFO database (2011-2021)

References:

Aoki, S., & Kogayu, N. (2022). An alternative interpretation hypothesis regarding color perception. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, (in this issue).

Benson, N.F., et al. (2019). Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists in the U.S.: Findings from the 2017 national survey. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 29-48.

Editorial: 03 Frauenhoffer, D., et al. (1998). Psychological test usage among licensed mental health practitioners: A multidisciplinary survey.

Journal of Psychological Practice, 4(1), 28-33.

Kato, D., & Suzuki, M. (2015). Relationships between human figure drawing by Japanese early adolescents: Applying the Synthetic House-Tree-Person Test. Social Behavior & Personality, 43(1), 175-176.

Kennedy, M.L., et al. (1994). Social-emotional assessment practices in school psychology. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 228-240.

Khromov, A.B., & Dubey, B.L. (2016). Comparison of the correlates’ structure of the Rorschach, SIS-I and SIS-II projective techniques with the MMPI test and factorial analysis of the indicators. Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 23(1), 12-21.

Lilienfeld, S.O., et al. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27-66. Louttit, C.M., & Browne, C.G. (1947). Psychometric instruments in psychological clinics. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 11, 49-

54.

Lubin, B., et al. (1986). Psychological assessment services and psychological test usage in private practice and in military settings.

Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 4(2), 19-29.

Lubin, B., et al. (1984). Patterns of psychological test usage in the United States: 1935-1982. American Psychologist, 39, 451-454. Navarro, C., et al. (2020). Standards for research on projective tests and child sexual abuse. RevistaLberoamericana de Diagnostico y

EvaluacionPsicologica, 57(4), 5-25.

Piotrowski, C. (2019). Projective techniques are not moribund: Comment on the Benson et al. (2019)assessment practices article.

Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 26(2), 73-76.

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., & Keller, J.W. (1989). Psychological testing in outpatient mental health facilities: A national study. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20(6), 423-425.

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

Piotrowski, C., et al. (1993). Projective techniques: An international perspective. Psychological Reports, 72, 179-182.

Polyson, J., et al. (1986). MMPI and Rorschach: Three decades of research. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17(5), 476-478.

Polyson, J., et al. (1985). The recent decline in TAT research. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16(1), 26-28. Reynolds, W.M., & Sundberg, N.D. (1976). Recent research trends in testing. Journal of Personality Assessment, 40(3), 228-233. Sundberg, N.D. (1961). The practice of psychological testing in clinical services in the U.S. American Psychologist, 16, 79-83. Sundberg, N.D. (1954). A note concerning the history of testing. American Psychologist, 9(4), 150-151.

Verdon, B., et al. (2014). The dynamics of TAT process: Psychoanalytical and psychopathological perspectives. Rorschachiana, 35(2), 103-133.

Wright, C.V., et al. (2017). Assessment practices of professional psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(2), 73-78.

Zhao, Y., et al. (2015). Drawing characteristics of children with somatization symptom in House-Tree-Person Test. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 29(2), 115-120.