ad@dubay.bz
(907) 223 1088
Somatic Inkblot Series (SIS) emerged as an extension to the existing inkblot techniques, including the Rorschach Inkblot Test. This unique assessment method relies heavily on content analysis to understand the inner cry of a person and penetrates into deeper layers of unconscious in order to elicit underlying conflicts and intra-psychic processes which contribute to emotional and interpersonal issues in one‟s life. The Series has also made conceptual and procedural advancements by introducing the concept of inkblots into three major forms: (i) Card Form (ii) Booklet Form and (iii) Screen/Video Form. An interview assessment of an examinee focused on image rejection, distorted perceptions of easy to perceive inkblot forms allow an easy access to perturbing areas into the psyche. To make Somatic Inkblot Series available worldwide and promote the projective ass essment, Somatic Inkblot Society was formed in 1989 and a peer-reviewed bi-annual publication of Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health was launched in 1994 which has a track record of timely publications since its inception. The journal has stimulated researches and applications in Somatic Inkblot Series and related projective techniques, and proved to be a major bibliometric resource to academicians, researchers and practitioners of inkblot techniques. In the course of applications, it became apparent that Somatic Inkblot Series is a reliable tool to map personality attributes that are conducive to management and organizational contexts. The present paper is an attempt to summarize and elucidate various aspects of Somatic Inkblot Series and provide an overview of related inkblot techniques. Future directions for the field of assessment are noted.
Somatic Inkblot Society (SIS) was established in India in the year 1989 and got registered in 1992. SIS is publishing “Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health” a biannual scientific Journal in January and July since 1994. The Journal is devoted to the advancement of research in the areas of projective psychology, personality assessment, psychotherapy and mental health. It is broadly concerned with the development of inkblot tests and personality assessment in clinical, counseling, cross cultural, organizational and health psychology settings. It aims to reach clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, psychiatrists, social workers, medical professionals and professional managers interested in the understanding and modification of human behavior.
The present paper is prepared to highlight: (1) the Development of inkblot tests, (2) Progress of “Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health”, and (3) Research Contribution, International Conferences and Workshop organized by the Society.
The history of the inkblot procedure is traceable only through Rorschach's own writings, and through the writings of Emil Oberholzer, Walter Morgenthaler, and George Roemer. Zubin et al. (1965) indicated that the concept of formless stimuli, used in inkblot techniques to stimulate the imagination, could be traced back to Leonardo Da Vinci and Botticelli in the fifteenth century.
The concept of projection is generally credited to Freud who used this term as early as 1896
Bankey L. Dubey, Ph.D., D.M.S.P., Professor, Editor Emeritus JPPMH andAnand Dubey, M.B.A. Editor JPPMH, and Vice President, Dubey Business Services, SIS Center, Anchorage AK 99517 (USA) Email: bldubey@gmail.com. and Rakesh Kumar, Ph.D. Executive Editor JPPMH, Head dept of Clinical Psychology, Institute of Mental Health and Hospital, Agra (India).
Key Words: SIS, Somatic Inkblots, SIS test
(Freud, 1950). He defined it as a defensive process in which impulses, wishes and ideas of aggressive and sexual in nature became externalized. During projective testing, the subject matter serves as a lens of projection and the recorded material of elicited behavior is the screen with the picture projected on it (Rapaport, et al., 1968). Before the publication of Rorschach “Psychodiagnostik‟ in 1921, many scientists (Bartlett, 1916; Kirkpatrick, 1900; Parsons, 1917;Pyle, 1913; Whipple, 1910) had used their own versions of inkblots in earlier exploration of the mind.
Rorschach Inkblot Test: The real beginning of a concept based technique started with Hermann Rorschach when he began to experiment with inkblots as early as in 1911. While he was fully aware of the earlier experiments with inkblots, he was more stimulated by Konard Gehring. As a teacher, Gehring had discovered that certain children gave very similar responses to a variety of inkblots, even though the figures were quite different in their form and/or color. Apparently initially Rorschach had no intention of constructing a psychodiagnostic test (Roemer, 1967). His first purpose was to investigate “reflex hallucinations”. These likely were visual form of hallucination. If this speculation is true he needs to be given credit to studying how Swiss psychotic disturbances may be projected on to inkblots. In any case, it was not until much later when he started collecting material in a systematic manner for diagnostic purposes (Roemer, 1967) Roemer also indicated that Rorschach discovered the diagnostic possibilities of the inkblot technique somewhat accidentally, while working at Herisau in Switzerland.
Emil Oberholzer a close associate of Herman Rorschach made the test alive after the untimely death of Rorschach. Oberholzer supported Rorschach's work and taught Levy in Switzerland. Levy came to New York with the test. Beck studied under Levy, and then did a dissertation on it, collected norms for children. Hertz in Cleveland did the same,
and made different norms. Beck, Klopfer, Piotrowski and Hertz all attributed great significance to Levy‟s enthusiasm for the Rorschach. He organized the first Rorschach‟s seminar in Chicago in 1925.
Bruno Klopfer was a German psychologist, who stayed in Zurich during the year 1934 and then moved to Columbia (USA) to escape Nazism. He was influenced by Jung and by psychoanalysis and his general approach has been described as "phenomenological" and "qualitative". Samuel Beck, on the contrary, had a more behaviorist training and put more emphasis on quantitative and "objective" data. Beck had also been trained in Rorschach methodology under Oberholzer in Switzerland. Both, Klopfer and Beck did not agree to each other particularly on the scoring of Location, Movement and Colors and the difference brought two prominent Rorschach systems. The Beck´s Rorschach was summarized in Rorschach´s Test (1937) and Klopfer´s system in The Rorschach Technique (Klopfer & Kelley, 1942).
Walter Klopfer continued at Columbia and Beck went to Harvard and they led discussion groups on the Rorschach test. Beck was more faithful to Rorschach's ideas, while Klopfer added more stuff to the scoring system. They started a paper debating the test, its merits and scoring, which turned to be the “Journal of Personality Assessment” in 1936. However, they started showing disagreement on various issues and Hertz tried to bring them together with no results. Klopfer taught Piotrowski in New York, and in 1939 he was separated from others with his own scoring system. Beck and Levy moved to Chicago Michael Reese, and continued for rest of their life. Rapaport made a new scoring system at the Menninger Foundation in Kansas with the help of Gill and Schaefer in 1940. They were interested in using a battery of tests rather a single test. This is how the five distinct Rorschach Scoring systems emerged but none was consistent with the original fifteen scores of Rorschach.
Campos (2011) opined that we must not forget that the ultimate goal of the testing is to get close to the “psychological truth” of the person who is being assessed, harmonizing and mastering theories and methods. The psychologist should not be merely a test user, but a kind of expert who decides what is needed and should be done in a particular case. Psychological assessment should allow a true interpretation of the data; it is not only a science, but also an art. The task of interpreting data in a meaningful, accurately and inclusive way, and the "transformation" of the results and their interpretation on something that might be useful to address the issues that triggered the assessment and the client needs, is still an art. In my opinion, no psychological assessment is possible without the use of at least one projective technique.
Although the Rorschach test represented a major step forward in inkblot projective technique, as might be expected, eventually its limitations were gradually exposed. Bartol (1983) commented that "Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach responses objectively. There is nothing to show what any particular response means to the person who gives it. And, there is nothing to show what it means if a number of people give the same response. The inkblots are scientifically useless." Anastasi (1982) had also made an adverse remark in his book “Psychological Testing: 5thed” and commented that “Even when objective scoring systems have been developed, the final steps in the evaluation and integration of the raw data usually depend on the skill and clinical experience of the examiner. There are many more renowned psychologists who have criticized Rorschach test but most of them are user of questionnaires - so called objective test and have hardly used Rorschach as an assessment tool.
However, the over emphasis on indices based interpretation by many Rorschachians, has
been criticized for wrong conclusions. Most of interpretation of Rorschach is based on the total number of responses given by the subject and the ratios. Fiske & Baughman (1953) reported that practitioners feel that the variation in the total number of responses is too much to be able to interpret the ratio scores adequately. Also, the meaning of the indices changes depending upon the length of the protocol, because the relationship between Rorschach scores and the total number of responses is complex and curvilinear (Dubey, 1982). Many workers compute percentage ratio in an effort to control the length of the protocol. Holtzman (1956) pointed out that such procedures were very unsatisfactory, not only because of the non-linear relationships between R and other Rorschach's scores, but also because of the crude, unstable and metric qualities of most Rorschach variables.
Dubey (1982), in a study on 300 subjects, found that most of the Rorschach indices are dependent upon the number of responses. When the groups of Normal, Neurotics, and Schizophrenics were divided, on the basis of number of responses, into high productivity and low productivity, many indices, which were found to be significant earlier, lost their significance. It further strengthened the findings of Fiske and Baughman, and supported the intention of Holtzman.
Holtzman et al. (1956) pointed out that much of the controversy over the Rorschach arises from the failure to distinguish between the Rorschach as a projective technique in the hands of a skilled clinician, and the Rorschach as a psychometric device, that yields scores having relevance for personality assessment. The analysis of responses to inkblots has ranged all the way from one extreme to the other of the projective psychometric continuum. Wayne Holtzman developed “Holtzman Inkblot Technique” in 1956 to overcome the limitations of the Rorschach test.
The main limitation of the Rorschach, as experientially determined, was the problem of variation in the length of the protocol (Dubey et al. 1978; 1979; 1989;Fiske & Baughman, 1953; Holtzman, 1956). Consequently, the usual effect of R linear regression methods for removing the confounding effect of R will generally fail (Dubey, 1982; Fiske & Baughman, 1953). Holtzman was convinced right from the beginning that the new inkblot technique would have several distinct advantages over the standard Rorschach. First the number of response per individual could be held to a relatively constant value. Second, because each response would be to independent stimulus, the resulting protocol would be much more amenable to psychometric treatment. Third a fresh start in the production of stimulus materials could result in a richer variety of stimuli capable of eliciting far more information than the original 10 Rorschach plates. Forth, two parallel forms of the inkblots to use in the test-retest studies of personality change could be constructed easily from item analysis data in the experimental phase for development. And fifth, adequate estimates of reliability based on internal consistency and parallel test– retest correlations could be obtained independently for each major variable (Holtzman, 1988).
Subsequently, the HIT was translated into other languages and used as research tool and for clinical assessment in many countries. Suitable versions for group administration using projected images of inkblots were also developed and published (Holtzman & Swartz, 1963; Holtzman et al. 1963).
In developing the Somatic Inkblot Series (SIS), Wilfred A. Cassell had the benefit of insights traceable from the contributions of Hermann Rorschach and Wayne Holtzman. The SIS has the quality of Unstructured Inkblots like Rorschach and the larger
numbers of images like Holtzman. There are unstructured, semi structured and structured images numbering from 20 in Card Form (SIS-I), 62 in Booklet Form (SIS-II).
The Projective techniques are especially helpful in evaluating those having limited language and verbal skills such as children, foreign born or new immigrants, native peoples, the learning disabled or the mentally sub normal. There is enough structure in many of the SIS inkblots to provide a sense of security and a measure of self-confidence. Those with limited language and verbal skills usually rely more on visualization and adapt better to projective technique than verbal interviews or testing that requires reading or language skills. Such images use the language of dreams, visual imagery, and symbolic thought, the most basic forms of thinking and expression. It is also the language of repression and brings whatever is buried in the mind closure to consciousness, accessible for processing. Expression stimulated by ambiguous or partially ambiguous visual input can be used in therapy to test insight and to help measure treatment progress.
Wilfred A. Cassell initially recognized in 1959 the need for developing a measure of “Body Image”, as psychiatric resident conducting a collaborative study on hirsutism, with a psychoanalyst Marc Hollender (Hollender & Cassell, 1972). Subsequently Hollender, who was Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, New York, brought Seymour Fisher a colleague of Wayne Holtzman to join the research group. This enabled Cassell the opportunity to train in projective assessment under the guidance of Fisher. He had constructed two inkblot content scales derived from studying patients suffering from Rheumatoid arthritis: the Barrier and Penetration. The former was based upon a summation of responses depicting the periphery of objects. It was created to assess the degree of definiteness experienced by an individual regarding self- perception of body boundaries. In regard to the latter, this was conceptualized as a mixed measure denoting both the notion of Body Boundary “indefiniteness” (e. g. references to opening such as windows broken containers etc.) and “Interior body awareness”(e.g. responses representing projections of internal organs). Background work had been presented in a book entitled Body Image and Personality (Fisher & Cleveland, 1958).
After learning Rorschach content analysis theory, Cassell explored the test validity of Fisher and Cleveland‟s Penetration index as an operational measure of internal body awareness. He investigated, what in the post- World War II period, were classified in a now invalid diagnostic category as “Psychosomatic” conditions. However, no relationship was found between the channeling of stress induced physiologic activity to internal organs, such as heart and stomach, and scores on this index.
This failure led him to next independently reappraise the content constructs underlying the Penetration score. This revealed that regarding somatic orientation within the body gestalt, that this index was spatially mixed and summed separate conceptual categories (e.g. “apples” versus “oranges”). The second scoring category of Fisher and Cleveland included responses theorized to symbolize “indefinite exterior body boundaries”, erroneously added with those concretely depicting internal organs. As a follow-up to this analysis, Cassell constructed a new index based solely upon interior anatomy content. This was called the “Projective index of Body Interior Awareness” (Cassell, 1964)‟
Originally during his residency, Cassell was strongly influenced by such speculative, overly optimistic thinking of his professors. He hoped that designing inkblots with various degrees of resemblance to the human heart might provide an operational measure of “heart awareness”. After field testing the
newly designed somatic inkblot series, studies were initiated to assess subjects with medical histories of stress induced somatic symptoms (Cassell, 1965).
Ultimately several versions of the SIS were created. These provided a potentially powerful projective electronic system promising to provide new research and clinical diagnostic/therapeutic applications (Cassell, 1977; 1979; 1980) and internet application.
The SIS was initially developed as a research technique to facilitate the study of stress induced psychophysiological in 1959.Itis a structured, projective, diagnostic procedure and an adjunct to psychotherapy. It is structured by a sequential presentation of intentionally designed and field-tested inkblot- like images. These stimuli demonstrate typical and atypical response potentials. This technique is based on spontaneous, individually generated responses to semi- ambiguous figures, which elicit intrapsychic associations specific to the person presented with them. The SIS is a diagnostic procedure as a consequence of the interaction of structure and stimuli. These stimuli evoke symbolism and meanings unique to the responding individual such as present in somatic delusions and affect charged dreams. The test stimuli can be differentiated from typical and atypical peer norms, and can be analyzed according to internationally recognized diagnostic criteria. The procedure is an adjunct to therapy because responses can be further explored to create a more effective treatment plan, and can be re-addressed in later discussions, providing opportunities to elicit deeply defended material. During the administration of the SIS procedure, clients, patients and students may abreact emotional conflict raised to consciousness by the images, which can be a therapeutic experience in itself.
The viewer writes responses on an answer sheet. Most of what is included in the ambiguous structure relates to specific life situations and post-traumatic dream content that has been found to have clinical significance. Viewing the SIS has both diagnostic and therapeutic applications that are far reaching.
The SIS procedures have been used internationally on different normal and clinical population. Various researchers have reported high reliability and validity of the test (Cassell, 1969; 1971; 1972; 1977; 1980,
1988; Cassell & Dubey, 2003; 2009b; Dubey & Cassell 1991; Dubey et. al. 1995; 1993;Goel et. al. 1990; Kaur &Verma, 1998; Kumar, 2000; 2009; 2010; Kumaret al.200;
2005; 2008; Nicolini, 2002; Pandey, et.al.1999;Pershad & Dubey, 1994; Rathee et al.1998; Singh & Banerjee, 1996; Verma & Kaur, 1999).
Somatic Inkblot Series-I: (20 Cards and Electronic Version of 20 Cards)
The Somatic Inkblot Series- I consists of 20 inkblot images printed on white cards, each measuring 16.5 X 20.5 cms. The images are printed in black, red, and gray (screened black). Eight of them are black and red (serial numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8); three are exclusively red (serial numbers 10, 11, and 12); and nine are achromatic (serial numbers 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20). Images
provide enough obvious anatomical structure to evoke spontaneous verbalization, but not enough to limit the responses solely to the naming of body parts or colors. In this way, obvious anatomical structure provides a feeling of security, which makes deeper and more symbolic repressed material more accessible to the person taking the procedure.
The SIS provides clinicians and researchers with a new diagnostic aid for body percept assessment. It can be used to assess the depth and significance of somatic symptoms, conversion reactions, somatic delusions and sexual dysfunction. Analysis of mutilated or distorted anatomy responses can assess the possibility or level of castration anxiety (Cassell, 1980). Responses depicting themes of body assault may further clarify the extent of aggressive impulses (Cassell, 1977). As a diagnostic tool, the series can help to evaluate undetected affective disorders such as “masked depression” where depressive feelings are denied during the interview and in non-projective psychological tests. The flow of cognition might reveal early defects of schizophrenic disorder. “Death anxiety” in those facing major surgery or those with a terminal illness may be signaled by excessive anatomical responses (Cassell, 1979). The Somatic Inkblot Series can be used to help design a treatment program which might include body awareness exercises, such as physical therapy. It also may be used in other therapies, such as sensory feedback training, behavioral therapy, and desensitization for psycho-physiological symptoms associated with pathological anatomy responses (Cassell, 1977). This technique has been described in the book, “Body Symbolism” (Cassell, 1980), which has been translated into Italian and Russian.
The electronic version of the test is designed for supervised self-administration. It can also be used as group administered test.
In 1980, after initial success with SIS-I, the development of SIS-II (booklet form) was initiated. It consists of Series A and Series B, each with 31 images (total of 62 images). There is also a sample image in the beginning to make the subject comfortable. The stimulus images are printed in rectangles measuring about 5x6 cm. All the images are contained in an eight page booklet. The first seven pages consist of the stimulus images and the last page is printed with instructions for self- administration, and a place for a brief health history and personal data. Unlike SIS-I, it consists of images printed with blue ink on grey paper.
The printed instructions on the back of the book as follows:
“Most people find this test fun and relaxing. First relax, take a few deep breaths, and prepare to enjoy. Please turn this Booklet over and read the sample response. Notice that you may write on the picture or the space below it. Label each in terms of what they resemble or look like to you. Please include everything that you see, even if it reminds you of something, remote, vague, dreamlike, highly personal or even potentially embarrassing. Please include every that you see with as much detail as possible. Also include any outstanding emotional reactions that you might experience in responding to these pictures. Please begin on the first page, study the sample, and continue until completed. Enjoy!”
The SIS-II can be used in a variety of ways, but was designed for self-administration after supervised instruction. Some clinicians use the booklet with the patient or to unobtrusively observe the self- administration to observe reaction times and significant verbal and nonverbal responses for each inkblot (delays, overreaction and content shock). Others prefer to allow the patient to take the booklet home and write in responses whenever they have the time to relax and review the figures (intermittent administration), or if they prefer, at one time (continuous administration). Some have found it useful to have the patient complete the test booklet before going to bed, to stimulate the unconscious to process repressed materials in dream during sleep. Usually, clinically significant, blocked material, will over-ride typical normative responses directly (manifest), or it will appear in symbolized imagery, similar to dream work (latent).
Because there is no time limit, “test anxiety” is reduced, and the individual is free to react in his own time, often exhibiting significant verbal and non-verbal clues to each of the inkblots. Since there is no text to read, the Somatic Inkblot Series does not require a high reading level, therefore, it is applicable to all age groups and a wide variety of cultures. In SIS-II, the subject is asked to rate the three- inkblot images that he “most liked” and the three images that he “least liked.” This inquiry invites positive or negative affectual discharge. The subject‟s emotional investment provides valuable diagnostic clues to his/her psychological function. The SIS-II can successfully identify various groups of clinical subjects, and can be used to screen out abnormal subjects from normal subjects.
The 30 image Web Version was launched after the success of SIS-II Booklet
Electronic version in 2017. It is a self- administered test which has also been used as group administered test during personality assessment in business organizations. It is also available in computerized version which has rendered internet application (www.somaticinkblots.com). The Instruction and Administration are similar to SIS-II. The viewer writes responses on an answer sheet.
Viewing the SIS has both diagnostic and therapeutic applications that are far reaching. The SIS is highly innovative and, in a sense, a "time machine." It takes the viewer away from present reality. If there is unresolved painful material in the past memory storage, through the magic of electronic television, the projected responses will tend to be shaped by this material. What emerges in projective awareness is deep seated material, even though the viewer may have long forgotten the buried traumatic imagery and associated affect. It facilitates the expression of feelings and earlier forgotten life events underlying many forms of mental illness and conversion pain.
When the viewer rates those images, which are the most threatening, the examiner gets a quick psychological overview of the subject‟s state of mind. The technique enables the professional to more readily empathize. The hypnotic like administration of the SIS is designed to maximize the pulling power of inkblot projection. By writing responses, rather than verbalizing them, just like in hypnotic writing, the subject may more readily access and release painful material. In addition to the cathartic, therapeutic response, the person may gain some insight and sense of mastery of the traumatic material by the act of drawing and labeling the images. Also, when the procedure is assigned repetitively over time, the experiencing of the healing flowers, in association with the threatening, anxiety-laden images may serve to desensitize the viewer.
Applications of this procedure have proven to be far-reaching and international. The use of graphic images, rather than words, allows the computer version to cross both cultural and language boundaries. The number of uses in medical diagnosis, psychological assessment and psychotherapy is rapidly growing. It is anticipated that in the 21st century, all students of the healing arts and psychology, during their training will have the opportunity to be introduced to this technique. Currently, a complete data bank is being developed where individuals from various SIS Centers around the world may submit data and access information via modem or facsimile communication. This could truly be a comprehensive artificial intelligence system to be employed for good in a world beset by evil.
Cassell & Dubey (2010) pointed out that some psychologists question the validity of projective test as they do with Questionnaires. They forget that the projective tests cannot be verified on the same parameters as questionnaires. We put our perception and feelings in to the mind of subject by asking them to choose their answers as “Yes” or “No”, “True” or “False” “Agree” or “Disagree” etc. The true validity of a test should be decided “if it measures for what it was made”.
An Inkblot test is a powerful instrument. It brings unprocessed symbolic material through projection which cannot be measured assessed through so called objective questionnaires.
The projective tests, such as the SIS, cannot be tested for validity, like objective tests. The SIS is a method of observation and appraisal. With regards to a test that measures some aspects of personality, it is legitimate to ask, "Is it valid?" However, in regard to a method of observation, the appropriate questions are: "Is it useful?", "Is it productive?", and “Does it conform to some construct?" The SIS is an objective procedure for observation; therefore validity in psychometric terms cannot be determined. The question then arises; can we still call it a valid procedure? The clinical interview and the diagnostic procedures are based on the information elicited from the patient/client and his observations. Has anyone doubted the validity of such clinical interviews and diagnostic procedures? If not, the validity of the projective test, the SIS in particular, must be recognized since its utility would appear to be established at a clinical case history level. It is therefore, necessary to demonstrate empirically the content and construct validity of the SIS. The other types of validity generally given in textbooks cannot be determined (Cassell & Dubey, 2009b)”.
The content validity of the test can be demonstrated if the patient/client suffering from focal somatic symptoms project altered patterns of anatomical responses. In a number of studies, it has been found that relationships exist between an individual's physical disturbances and his/her projected anatomical responses (Cassell, 1969; 1971;
1972‟ 1977; 1980;1990; Dubey & Cassell 1993). In a study on heart patient in India, results suggested that the somatic preoccupation was not verbalized any more than compared with a healthy control. It was interpreted that the body disturbances were consciously denied (Goel et al. 1990).
To have construct validity on the basis of existing literature on inkblot technique, it can be assumed that Most Typical responses and Atypical responses have to be different in broad psychiatric diagnostic categories compared to healthy controls. This hypothesis was tested on Neurotics, Schizophrenics, and healthy Normal subjects. The Atypical responses were found to be significantly higher in Psychotics than Neurotics and Normal. Likewise, Most Typical responses were significantly higher in normal subjects compared to psychiatric patients (Cassell, 1988; Cassell & Dubey. 2003, Dubey & Cassell. 1993). Several researchers have found SIS test as highly reliable and valid instrument (Kaur &Verma,1998;Nicolini, 2002; Pershad & Dubey, 1994; Singh & Banerjee, 1996; Verma & Kaur, 1999).
Pershad& Dubey (1994) established the reliability and validity of the SIS Test. The correlation for the content categories over a period of four weeks, on repeat testing was found to be in the range of .69 to .88. The split-half reliability was established by splitting the test into two equal halves. These equal halves are the natural divisions of the test that consists of two series, A and B. Except MT and Human Responses, correlation for R, Animal, Anatomical, Sex, Movement and Rejection of images was found to be in the range of .66 to .89. Inter-scorer reliability for the indices was scored separately by a trained and experienced clinical psychologist, having experience with the SIS, and by a fresh psychologist who was provided with a set of definitions for the variables. It was discovered that there was no difference between their two independent scorings. It can be argued that it was not a scoring, but merely a counting of the responses under different categories (Total number of Responses: Human responses, Animal responses, Anatomical responses, Sex responses, Movement responses, Most Typical responses and Rejection of images).
Rathee et al. (1998) administered Somatic Inkblot Series-II on 200 psycho-pathological cases of Armed Forces and found that out of 10 common indices of SIS and Rorschach, five variables in schizophrenia, four in affective psychosis, seven in unspecified psychosis, five in Anxiety, four in Depression and seven in Hysteria, showed high and positive correlations. The findings indicate the high diagnostic validity of SIS-II indices against those of Rorschach's among six psycho-pathological groups of armed forces.
The Meta- Analysis of the findings of the studies on SIS-II was carried out to provide combined mean and S.D. of various groups to see if SIS-II indices could differentiate the groups statistically. All the studies appeared in Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health 1994-2000 were considered for the purpose. The studies were combined into five groups based on specified criteria: Normal, Neurotics, Psychotics, Substance Dependents and Murderers. Critical Ratio were computed on combined mean and standard deviation for inter group comparisons. Results indicate that SIS-II indices do differentiate the comparison groups (Kumar, 2000).Srivastava (2002) also confirmed the findings of Kumar‟s study SIS-I indices significantly differentiate the various comparison groups such as Normal, Coronary Heart Disease, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Schizophrenia.
Cassell & Dubey (2009) presented two previously unpublished early statistical studies on SIS content validity. The first was completed in 1978 with the SIS-I. It used a content analysis scoring system to quantify projective responses in a group of 13 women suffering from Premenstrual Dysphoric Syndrome (PMDD). As compared to a control group of 37 women these subjects projected significantly more responses depicting reproductive and sexual symbols. Based upon chi squared analysis, statistically significant differences were found for such sex related anatomical responses, but not for unrelated body parts such as heart and lungs. The second study was completed in 1988 with the SIS-II Booklet Version. The data were analyzed for 37 of the 62 SIS stimuli. In the comparison 28 pregnant women were compared with 27 non-pregnant controls. A Chi-square analysis revealed that pregnant women projected more response related to reproduction and/or pregnancy.
Sanyal et al. (2011) highlighted the clinical probing of a case, aged 8 years, first born, and belonging to a middle socio-economic strata, living with maternal grandparents, and having adjustment problems. She was administered with the CAT, Fairy Tale Test, and Somatic Inkblot Series -II. The three different projective tests were administered for cross-verification of the findings. Results revealed striking congruence of the signs of the searches in relation to the clinical delving of the interview and the projective probing of the case, reflecting the clinical efficacy of projective tests in general.Cervigni (2013) administered SIS-I (Card form) to two cases for diagnostic formulation and therapeutic intervention in Italy. The test was found valid in assessing personality and diagnostic evaluation and the test must be included in every clinic as a therapeutic procedure. It helped in therapeutic planning and trapping unprocessed unconscious material. Dewangan & Roy (2015) studied Social Desirability Biasness in Rorschach Inkblot and found that many psychologists rely more on projective psychological assessment to identify any personality pathology or clinical symptoms with the believe that projective tools are protected from social desirability biasness.
Basu (2014) critically relocates the debate concerning the validity and utility of projective tests within multiple interpretative and process oriented approaches. Some scholars opine that there could be alternate ways of looking at projective tests, for example using it as a technique to elicit cognitive and emotional states or as behavior samples. Supporting, modifying or denigrating the use of projective tests may reflect different underlying attitudes toward ambiguity and multiple interpretation of a situation. Thus it represents either of two different traditions of psychology: one, aspiring to attain a structured and organized view of human behavior facilitating prediction, and the other, an acceptance and appreciation of idiographic and divergent responses that may not necessarily be predictive, but informative about the multiple possibilities of human thought process. This latter approach would be more concerned with the process of experiencing rather than with obtaining a relatively final and fixed answer to the dilemmas of existential conditions. The possibility of such approach was always present in the history of projective tests, but has been subdued under the hegemonic pressure of diagnostic utility. It was argued that a process oriented view of responses to ambiguous situations, along with a sensitivity to human diversity and multiple interpretations rather than emphasizing commonality, may open up a fresh relocation of projective technique within psychology. Training of projective technique may incorporate this consideration for future researchers.
Khromov & Dubey (2016) measured the correlation of Rorschach, SIS-I and SIS-II inkblot tests to find out the mutual empirical validity with MMPI test. The three tests were administered to 98 subjects. The results were ciphered on identical forms containing 54 categories which were correlated with MMPI test. The structure of correlation in each pair matrix of three inkblot tests was calculated and has been compared. Сronbach has commented that projective techniques give wider strip of information and lower reliability in comparison with objective psychometric tests whereas Cassell (1980) emphasized that increased structure of projective stimulus have raised level of reliability of projective tests. The findings of present research revealed, that psychometric properties of inkblots tests increased after increasing the stimulus from Rorschach to SIS-I 20 images
and from SIS-I to SIS-II (62 images). However, it was not able to increase the ability to differentiate subjects‟ specific mental disorders. Correlation between ambiguity and projection of properties of the person has nonlinear character, and the moderate level of ambiguity gives an optimum variant at displaying.
Hermann Rorschach did not postulate a specific theory with regard to his inkblot technique either for personality evaluation in general or clinical diagnosis (Exner, 1969). However, Zygmut A. Piotrowski (1957) has postulated a theory of Rorschach test known as Percept analysis. In spite of its limitations in terms of theoretical postulations, the Rorschach method offers a procedure through which the individual is induced to reveal his
„private world‟ by telling what he „sees‟ in the
10 cards upon which he may project his meanings, significance and feelings. Frank (1939) as many others also believe (Beck, 1937; Klopfer, 1939) that the Rorschach method is essentially a procedure for revealing the personality of the individual.
Currently there are six such systems, none of which completely different from the others, or from the Rorschach‟s original conceptions. The differences that exist in the present day Rorschach Systems seem to have been precipitated by two factors. First, none of the authors of the six systems, Beck, Klopfer, Hertz, Piotrowski, Rapaport with his colleague Schafer and Exner, had any direct contact with Hermann Rorschach. The second and much more fundamental reason appears to be the general training and background to which each were exposed.
Although there are major differences, there are major agreements too. For example, all those who developed scoring system tended to endorse some form of psychoanalytical theory and accepted many of Rorschach‟s original interpretative hypotheses (Exner, 1969). All of these persons developed
different systems for Rorschach‟s scoring and interpretations. The systems, however, have been heavily drawn from the basic procedure suggested by Hermann Rorschach based on his empirical findings. Among these systems Beck, Klopfer and Exner‟s systems are used most frequently depending upon the training the user has received?
Wilfred A. Cassell has postulated three theories of SIS: Somatic Imagery Theory, Theory of Body Symbolism and Theory of Inner Cry. These have fulfilled the theoretical gap of Rorschach test. The theories proposed (Cassell & Dubey, 2003) have been illustrated below:
Somatic imagery theory proposes that everyone has a unique and highly personalized system of attitudes, both conscious and unconscious, that is projected onto the body concept as a special entity. These interact with external environmental feedback sources and internal sensations. Relatively discrete mental representations exist for particular somatic regions, which constantly compete for full registration in consciousness. Somatic awareness transiently increases in states of hunger, physical exertion, emotional arousal and sexual excitement. Subsequently, the mental representations in the body fade into the background of consciousness.
Alterations in body perception also occur in physical illness. In the diseased body, pathologic physiologic processes give rise to percepts from the diseased area, which directly or indirectly, enter into awareness. The patient's sensitivity to these depends partially on the pre-existing body concept. Sensations that arise from regions of high priority in the body gestalt are more likely to register than those from more perceptually silent areas. If the sensations are subjectively considered aberrant, the individual must then cognitively evaluate their potential abnormal significance. At this stage, the medical patient experiencing somatic symptoms then makes a kind of lay "diagnosis." Intense pain or gross changes in body function are readily distinguished from normal body processes. However, other alterations such as early stages of disease formation pose problems for subjective interpretation.
The cognitive appraisal of the altered body state is influenced by factors such as age, sex, socioeconomic status and past medical and family history of disease experience. There may be a strong motive, conscious or unconscious, to adopt a sick role to obtain disability compensation. There may also be a stress-induced wish to regress to an infantile, dependent position, and be taken care of by parental figures such as a spouse, grown children, physicians, nurses or nursing home staff.
Interaction between these multiple mind-body (“psychosomatic”) determinants will influence whether or not an individual decides to consult a physician to report subjective experiences. Such "symptoms" reported in the early stages of an initial visit represent verbal communication, containing localized reference to specific organ images within the body gestalt. Their cognitive content reflects altered anatomical awareness associated with the patient's belief that the given region has impaired function. Once professional consultation is obtained, the physician formulates a series of diagnostic hypotheses based on "presenting symptoms", on the nature of the underlying disease processes. Then a former structured medical interview is conducted, with questions designed to uncover the pathological significance of somatic symptom clues. In most instances, an insightful physician will be in a relatively strong position to establish a working diagnosis upon completion of the history.
In this situation, there is no strong need for additional aids in diagnostic interviewing, such as anatomical like projective test techniques. There are, however, some cases when the
diagnosis is not clear. Patients may present symptoms, which do not fit into recognizable disease patterns, or there may be major obstacles in communication with the individual. Some patients minimize or deny physical illnesses while others exaggerate them.
Clinical experience, upon which the SIS procedure builds, indicates that persons suffering from stress induced physical disturbances or (“hypochondriac“) conversion reactions, malingering etc will report perceive abnormal anatomical structure on SIS blots. There may be sensitization with anatomy (increase in number of anatomical responses) or repression with avoidance of somatic content. This clinical use of content analysis follows the interpretation principles described by Schafer (Schafer, 1954; 1960).
When the responder projects the response "sick stomach," it may indicate a concern about individuals own health or that of the loved one. Alternatively in a more physiologic fashion, it may signify a deeper level of body awareness involving the stomach. This is consistent with Hermann Rorschach's believe that certain anatomical responses may be a projection of kinesthetic sensations in the musculature.
By assessing an individual's responses, and associations to them, much can be learned about the person's innermost thoughts and feelings. What is seen or imagined in semi- ambiguous inkblots reveals his deeper layer of self-perception. It is hoped that these evolving technique may be applied by investigators of inner psychic space leading to the creation of new body-mind-spiritual theory. At its present stage, the various forms of the SIS have been found helpful as an aide to enable professional to empathize more sensitively with the suffering individual's "inner cry." Previously, their suffering was more likely hidden because of defensive mental mechanisms. Many existing techniques employed today are highly time consuming,
not particularly cost-effective. Perhaps most important of all, they do not readily provide a transparent window into the inner world.
Interest in the symbolic significance of the human body can be traced back to the very dawn of civilization (Wentinck, 1972). Indeed, ancient wall paintings and stone carvings evidence preoccupation with this subject. These distinguish Homo sapiens from less symbolically able species. Throughout history, pictorial representations of the body have been a central theme of artistic expression of humanity's search for identity. Philosophically, such representations are an attempt to integrate mental and physical phenomenon rather than to isolate or reduce them, as in Cartesian mind-body dualism.
When someone projects onto an inkblot the response "sick stomach", it may indicate a concern or focus on that organ in one-self or another person. It also might indicate some association or deeper symbolization involving the stomach. An organic or functional disorder in that organ system is consistent with Rorschach's view that certain anatomy responses may be a projection of kinesthetic sensation in the musculature (Rorschach, 1951). Freud, and later Alexander and French, described how gastrointestinal dysfunction or distress can be a manifestation of underlying psychological conflict which is below conscious awareness.
Projective techniques geared specifically to body imagery and organ function assesses both organic and functional disorders, real or imagined. Roy Schafer, a psychoanalyst, advocated a content analysis approach (Schafer 1954, 1960). More recently, content analysis has been reviewed in Aronow & Reznikoff's book "Rorschach Content Interpretation" (1973).
Qualitative content analysis assesses the individual's imaginable mode of information processing. It taps the same inner perceptual
field as dream imagery. This occurs on a continuum from pictorial recall to pictorial metaphor. Pictorial recall is visualized objective reality, rational and realistic. Pictorial metaphor is a complex concept which is highly individualized, consisting of subjective associations of past experiences, interpretation of present realities and future expectations along with their meaning. While "normal" perception matches reality, it is never 100% congruent with objective fact. An example is the relative unreliability of some eyewitness accounts. Memory and dreams are contaminated by personal cognitive and affective percepts. These dynamics often elude both structured interview and a battery of standardized psychological tests. They are more readily understood through extensive symbolic analysis.
Clinicians worldwide have heard the cry for help in a variety of ways. These range from abused children who escape stress through Dissociative Disorders to victims of catastrophe or war, who suffer from post- traumatic stress disorders. Other manifestations include ongoing frustrations in their life situations and in affective disorders or abnormal behavior.
Some cry for help through their bodies, with Somatoform disorders. All these are diagnosable by DSM or ICD criteria through use of definition and symptom checklists. Underlying conflicts can also be manifested in subtle, more complex, and less dramatic ways. Physical symptoms, such as functional disorders, hypersensitivity of an organ system, or pain all in themselves may represent a form of a cry for help. There are daily examples of this somato-psychic interaction in such expressions as "it's a real pain in the neck" (or elsewhere), "my heart was pounding" (broken, bleeding, or heavy), "what a headache", "he's a hothead", etc.
For physicians, therapists and researchers, the body, its organ systems and its perceived functions are "doorways to the mind." By observing and assessing how people perceive or misperceive body and organ function, much can be learned about their innermost thoughts and feelings. What they see in ambiguous and semi-ambiguous inkblots shows how they see themselves, the quality of their life and lifestyle, their adjustment to conflict, their coping skills and their view of the reality of life.
The Somatic Inkblot Series can help therapists more sensitively "hear" a suffering individual's cry for help, the "inner cry" that is not only hidden from others, but often hidden from one's own conscious awareness as well. This is the "magic"; the unique and distinguishing feature of projective testing.
While the SIS uses somatic inkblots that involve body and organ imagery, they have identified a variety of personal problems and mental disorders also. As stated above, everyday conversations are replete with examples of the mind-body connection, such as "broken heart" for depression or grief; "stuck in my craw", "eating at my gut", "pain in the neck," or "what a headache" are used for anger or frustration; "butterflies in my stomach" or "scared shitless" are used for fear or panic, to name just a few.
Since projective tests are not based on verbal communication, they more effectively penetrate a person's "outer shell" of defenses and surface behaviors. Unlike personality and intelligence tests, projective tests do not require reading questions or manuals, so they more directly access mental processes. They use the language of dreams, visual imagery and symbolic thought, the most basic forms of thinking and expression. Projective tests speak the language of repression and bring whatever is buried in the mind closer to consciousness, so it is accessible for processing.
By developing a practiced eye and ear for this imagery, therapists can more directly share the perceptual world of their patients with less interference, and fewer variables than in
structured interviews or so-called "paper and pencil tests." If, as the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words," inkblots are picture recognition tests, and therefore are potentially more powerful than verbal interviews and tests. Therapists willing to more directly know and experience the patient's psychic pain will be rewarded with clearer understanding of the psycho-dynamics involved, and therefore be able to provide more effective therapy.
During psychophysiological arousal, this feedback process can give rise to real and symbolic somatic imagery during dreaming. A dreamer with a full bladder sending sensations to the brain will often experience scenes related to the need to urinate. Similarly, tensions in the reproductive structures can stimulate sexual imagery and related physical responses. If these feedback mechanisms were activated under laboratory controlled experimental conditions in associations with projective testing, it might be expected that similar somatic responses would be projected.
Against this conceptual background, apart from cognitive “familiarity”, affect linkage influences the intensity that heart percepts compete for registration in body gestalt awareness. Affect linked processes can then either heighten awareness or through neural inhibition, block organ specific imagery from registering in full consciousness. Evidence of this emotion based phenomenon is observed clinically in the mental disorders by “thought blocking”, “amnesic episodes, “conversion reactions” etc. Two clinical approaches that examine this theoretical consideration were completed. One involved the creation of a reduced state of viewing arousal, by inducing hypnotic relaxation; the other involved the use of sedating medication (Intervenous barbiturates). These approaches led to observations, that reducing anxiety/threat can free up the release of previously inhibited somatic imagery. Such clinical insights played an important role when SIS-II Video version was designed.
Dana (2000) compared Exner‟s normative data of North Americans with European and South American subjects and found marked differences on some important variables. For example, texture response is typically zero in European subjects (a European would express it only when it reaches the level of a craving for closeness) and there are fewer "good form" responses in comparison to the North American norms. Form is most often the only determinant perceived by European subjects, while Color is less frequent than in American subjects. The European subjects see more of Color-Form responses than Form-Color responses in comparison to North American subjects.
The differences in Form quality are attributable to purely cultural aspects: different cultures will exhibit different "common" objects (e.g. French subjects often see a chameleon on card VIII, which is normally considered as an "unusual" response, as opposed to Cats and Dogs by Scandinavians. Christmas Elves on card II and Musical Instrument on card VI is a popular response for Japanese subjects (Weiner, 2003).
Form quality, popular content responses and locations are the only coded variables in the Exner systems that are based on frequency of occurrence, and thus immediately subject to cultural influences; therefore, cultural- dependent interpretation of test data may not necessarily need to extend beyond these components (Weiner,2003). Similarly total numbers of responses are comparatively low among Indian subjects than North America. Army personnel give significantly low number of Responses in comparison of other Indian norms (Dubey, 1982).
Similarly, we have noticed different responses on Somatic Inkblot Images by North American
subjects and Indian subjects. Dancing lady and Apple are popular response on image A7 in North Americans whereas two Snakes along with Dancing lady and Apple are commonly perception by subjects in India. Alaskan subjects rarely project a Snakes response in in Alaska. With regard to projection of sexual responses for A 25, A27, and B18 North American subjects gave a higher number of responses than those living in India. It might be inferred that less were seen by Indians because of cultural impact and religious practices. Eve with an Apple is the common response on image A7 in North Americans. Similarly it is often perceived by Indians educated in Christian/English Schools in contrast with other Indian subjects. Similar findings have also been reported in various case studies published in several issues of SIS Journal of Projective Psych. & Mental Health.
Weiner (2003) has also advised when possible, to administer projective testing in the subject's native language. Test responses should also not be translated into another language prior to analysis except possibly by a clinician mastering both languages. It is hoped that Anthropologist will follow up on these observations.
What Constitutes a Projective Test?
The quantitative inkblot response indices for the Rorschach Holtzman tests and SIS have considerable historical research and clinical merit derived from a foundation of normative data. While assigning numerical summation scores to subjective inner world phenomenon may make such an approach appear “Objective” scientifically, the application of mathematics in this context does not have the same ring of reality as counting physical objects. In recent years, skeptical critics have raised fundamental questions regarding their applicability in 21st century clinical settings.
Historically, the categories “Human”, “Animal” and “Movement” utilize principles of projection, more than those assessing such constructs as “form” and “color”, which are more analogous to measurements made use of in neuropsychological tests. The later indices are based more upon the optics of perception of objects in the outer world, as opposed to the subjective inner world of emotion colored imagery. Consequently for psychometricians to label such tests as strictly “Projective” tends to be somewhat of a misnomer.
Content analysis is a more of a treatment oriented approach, than diagnostic one. Yet it must be acknowledged that the cost of controlled statistically based therapeutic outcome studies has so far prohibited their completion. However, there are many individual cases with the SIS highly suggestive of clinically significant positive results.
My revised conceptual model proposes that content derived from the phenomenon of “inkblot” projection involves imaginative viewing of visual input, which are sufficiently ambiguous to stimulate the release from memory storage of otherwise unavailable deep seated imagery. What ordinarily is released with content analysis is more akin to fantasy, dreams. PTSD flashbacks etc., and ultimately the suffering individual„s “inner cry”.
However, it must be acknowledged that content analysis does not readily lend itself to quantification scoring and has been criticized for not being “Objective”. A subject‟s projective profile tends to be highly unique and idiosyncratic. Often, the deep seated information surfaces and is projected in a disguised symbolic language, initially interpretable only by a trained professional. Consequently, much of the clinical SIS work has relied on an individual case history reports, as illustrated in many cases published in SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health from 1994-2018).
In clinical settings, the responses can reflect emotionally charged misperceptions of other “Humans“, the individual‟s faulty sense of self as a “Human”, distortions in perception of the individual‟s own body, as well of those of others, etc. On a temporal scale, the projected imagery tends to be highly fluid; fluctuating rapidly in the level of projective awareness during the period an inkblot series is viewed.
As previously outlined, the visualized imagery may surface at any point in a spectrum, ranging from either a photographic like representation of past real life events, or their distorted misperceptions. Moreover the images may be projected as symbolic defensive representations. However, in the more severe mental disorders having an organic neurological basis, the mental material that is projected, may primarily reflect underlying neuropathology and symbolism only secondarily.
Prior to the resultant imagery being recognized by the neurophysiologic processes giving rise to awareness and recognition, the inkblot information from the visual input is reshaped by psychological defense mechanisms. These control the competitive balance between “sensitization” and “repression”. The psyche forces attracting an image to the door of conscious awareness and ultimate recognition are opposed by opposing ones activating neural inhibitory processes.
Whether or not the image passes through the door and is then projected onto ambiguous inkblot stimuli depends upon the interplay between such competitions. When threatening affect causes inhibition to override sensitization, then secondarily activated brain circuitry search the same brain regions, as those which give rise to anxiety arousing dreams. Afterwards, if the affect released is potentially too threatening, what is brought to the responder‟s projective mind are disguised affect neutralized symbols. While these may have less disturbing affect linkage then the original stressful memories, the unfelt affect may be converted to a variety of secondary physical and mental symptoms.
Historically, Herman Rorschach‟s assessment of content was relatively limited not only due to his early death, but also to the limited understanding of the mental mechanisms underlying mental disorders in his lifetime. He assigned content to one of six categories: Animal content, Human content, Animal detail, Human detail, Inanimate object and Landscape. Several subsequent workers such as Beck et al. (1961) and Klopfer et al. 1954 expanded upon the number of content categories. Holtzman et al. (1961) included five categories: Human, Animal, Anatomy, Sex, and Abstract.
The high degree of somatic structure in the SIS taps into an important psychophysiological dimension. Previously, a book written by Schafer (1960), describing the relevance of anatomical content analysis in psychoanalytic treatment was noted. He outlined the importance of “Body Image” concepts as follows: “The blots themselves are equivalent to bodies. Their treatment as stimuli, that is, their use of colors, shadings and forms and their scores reflecting this usage, can be seen to additionally relate awareness of the expression of the subjective experience of bodies”. For a comprehensive overview of the field as it appeared in 1976, the reader is referred to a book written by Aronow & Reznikoff in their 1976 book, Rorschach Content Interpretation.
Content analysis is given more emphasis in interpretation of Somatic Inkblot responses. It frequently helps to bring out the unprocessed unconscious material on surface. What is seen through the response profile, along with the affect linkage, may have direct or symbolic significance either in the present or in the viewer's past. It is quite analogous to assessing such material as the
in-depth study of dreams. While the professional's own theoretical frame of reference will strongly influence the interpretative process, it is the authors, viewpoint that in most clinical therapeutic situations, content analysis for any given individual is a richer approach. Several Clinical cases are illustrated applying Content Analysis for understanding the power of inkblot instrument and outcome of therapeutic intervention in the book “Interpreting Inner World through Somatic Imagery (Cassell & Dubey, 2003). However, for the help of researchers, (Quantitative Analysis) emphasis on the analysis of various indices, such as number of responses(R), number of human, Animal, Anatomical, Sex, Popular/MT, Movement, and various indices in Determinants and Content categories has been given in the Manual of Test. Normative data and clinical indicators have been established on larger population. These indices are established for evaluating a series of mental constructs in various normal and clinical groups. The prognosis is estimated to be more guarded if the number of Rejection, along with the Pathological responses becomes elevated.
In short it can be concluded that the INKBLOT Test, particularly the Somatic Inkblots has taken care of earlier lacuna and has developed newer version of the procedure to have pace with the development of technology. This is the only inkblot test which has been administered as successful GROUP TEST in Industry during preliminary screening and selection in Indian industry. It is also becoming popular internet tool during Tele- therapy.
From its first publication in July 1994, two issues are published in January and July each year and reached to its members in time. Credit goes to Editor In Chief, Editors, Editorial Consultants and publication Manager for their efforts in getting the Journal ready
before time. About 400 articles were published using projective tests, case report and therapeutic interventions in 25 years. The Journal has reached to renounced Institute and Libraries in different countries with international membership. The paper published using projective tests are given separately in Bibliography section at the end.
Somatic Inkblot Series has even stirred the interest of research scholars to pursue their doctoral dissertations using any of the versions of the series. Following dissertations have been awarded the degree of doctor of philosophy in psychology.
awarded in 2008 from Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut under the guidance of Dr. Jyotsna Sharma and Dr. Rakesh Kumar.
The Society has organized following International Conferences on Somatic Inkblot Series:
Apart from regular workshops which are being conducted on somatic inkblot series, following workshops on the application of Somatic Inkblot Series were conducted in International Conferences.
Congress of Applied Psychology, Madrid, Spain July 18,1994.
Somatic inkblot series has been becoming increasingly popular as an assessment tool in clinical as well as non-clinical settings and stimulated ample interest of the researchers. There are many versatile areas in which still more advancements could be contemplated. One such area is real time brain imaging by exposing the participants to SIS images and identify which areas get stimulated during exposure to SIS images. To begin with this huge task can be reduced to using rejected images as the basis of investigation. Persons affected by specific emotional issues can be administered SIS and their rejected and least liked images can be identified. Further, these images could be exposed during real time brain imaging which can give additional insight into the dynamics and corresponding neural correlates.
Long term follow up studies could also be undertaken to see changes in projection on SIS at baseline, termination of psychotherapies, and subsequent follow ups. This will further establish the value of SIS in tapping pattern of intrapsychic changes over time.
Trance and SIS could be seamlessly integrated. An exploration of intrapsychic determinants of image rejection and least liked images could be explored under hypnotic trance which could potentially recover the suppressed painful emotional experiences
leading to pin pointed catharsis and developing insight which could accelerate the therapeutic process.
SIS could also be used along with psycho- physiological measurement. The participants could be exposed to SIS images on screen and simultaneous psycho-physiological monitoring could be done. Such an administration could be done non-verbally to identify emotionally charged imagery. Upon identification of imageries that elicit abnormal level of psychopathology, could be used to stir and access the emotional correlates of those images.
Inkblot techniques and handling of the data gathered through inkblots are still evolving. Inkblots are unique tools that provide an opportunity to the examiner to analyze the data both qualitatively and quantitatively. SIS is a potent tool in the family of inkblots that has distinct advantages which could be put to use in assessment, application and research settings. It is a relatively new tool and Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health has emerged as a primary database for the knowledge and applications of Somatic Inkblot Series.
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan
Aronow, E. & Reznikoff, M. (1976).Rorschach Content Interpretation. Grune and Stratton, NY.
Bartlett, F.C. (1916).An experimental study of some problems of perceiving and imaging, British Journal of Psychology, 8,222-267.
Bartol, K. M. (1983). Turnover among DP Personnel: A causal Analysis. Communications of the ACM, 26, 807-811.
Beck, S. J. (1937). Introduction to the Rorschach Method: A Manual of Personality Study. American Ortho Psyc. Assoc. Monograpgh.
Cassell, W. A. (1965). Body Perception and Symptom Localization. Psychosomatic Medicine, 27, 171-
176.
Cassell, W. A. (1969). Responses to Inkblot Configurations Resembling the Heart. J. Proj. Techn.& Personality Assent, 3, 123-126.
Cassell, W. A. (1971).Body Consciousness in Exhibitionism. British Journal of Projective Technique, 16, 21-31.
Cassell, W. A. (1972). Individual Differences in Somatic Perception. Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine, 8, 86 -104.
Cassell, W. A. (1979).Anatomical Rorschach Responses and Death Symbolism. British J. Proj. Tech. & Personality Study, 24, 7-16.
Cassell, W. A. (1980). Body Awareness and Somatic Delusions Involving Sexual Organs. American J. Psychoanalysis, 40, 125-135.
Cassell, W. A. (1980). Body Symbolism and the Somatic Inkblot Series. Anchorage, Alaska. Aurora Publishing.
Cassell, W. A. (1988).Validity Study of The SIS-II Booklet in Pregnant and Non-Pregnant Women. Presented in International Congress of Psychology, Sydney, Australia.
Cassell, W. A. (1990).Somatic Inkblot Series Manual. SIS Center, Anchorage, Alaska (USA).
Cassell, W.A. (1977).Aggressive Imagery and Clinical Symptoms in Schizophrenia. British J. Projective Technique, 16, 21-23.
Dubey, B. L. & Pershad, D. (1978).Validation of the Proposed Statistical Design for Rorschach .Indian
Dubey, B. L. (1982).A Pragmatic View of Rorschach Ink Blot Technique. National Psychological Corporation, Agra.
Dubey, B.L. & Cassell, W.A. (1993).Some Experiences with SIS. British Journal of Projective Psychology, 38: 1, 19-41.
Dubey, B.L. (1978).Rorschach Indicators in Normal &Clinical Groups in Military Population. Ph. D. Thesis, Panjab Univ., Chandigarh.
Dubey, B.L. (1979).Rorschach Indices of Psychiatric Patients in Army. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6, 175-179.
Dubey, B.L. (1989). Rorschach Profile of Indian Executives. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16, 74-77
Dubey, B.L., Pershad, & Verma, S.(1979).Rorschach Responses of Different Types of Neurotics.J. Rajasthan Psy. Society, 3, 29-32.
Exner, J. E. Jr. (1969). Rorschach Responses as an Index of Narcissism. J..Proj. Technique & Personality Assessment, 33, 324-330.
Fisher, S. & Cleveland, S. E. (1958).Body Image and Personality. Van Norstrand, Princeton, New Jersey.
Fisher, S. & Cleveland, S.E. (1958).Body Image and Personality. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
Fiske, D. W. & Baughman, E. E. (1953).Relationships between Rorschach Scoring Categories and the Total Number of Responses. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48,25-32.
Frank, L.K. (1939).Comments on the Proposed Standardization of the Rorschach Method. Rorschach Res. Exchange, 3,101-105.
Goel, D. S., Rathee, S. P., Saldanha, M., Chawla, A. S. & Dubey, B. L. (1990).SIS-I in Coronary Heart Disease. Proceedings of 1st SIS International Conference, Chandigarh, April.
Hollender, M. H. & Cassell, W. A. (1972). Psychological Problems Associated with Hirsutism. International Psychiatry Clinics, 3,2.
Holtzman, W. H. (1956). Inkblot Perception and Personality. University of Texas Press, Texas.
Holtzman, W. H. (1988). Beyond the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(4), 578-609.
Kaur, R. P. &Verma, S. K. (1998).A Correlational Study of Selected Rorschach and SIS – II Variables in Psychiatric Patients. SIS J. Projective Psych.& Mental Health, 5, 115-118.
Kirkpatrick, E.A. (1900).Individual test of School Children, Psychological Review, 7,274-280.
Klopfer, B. (1939). Should the Rorschach Method be Standardized? Rorschach Research Exchange, 3,45-54.
Klopfer, B.& Douglas K.(1942).The Rorschach Technique: A Manual for a Projective Method of Personality Diagnosis. World Book..
Parsons, C.J. (1917) Children‟s Interpretation of Inkblots.
British Journal of Psychology, 9, 74-92.
Piotrowski, C. (2015). Projective techniques usage worldwide: A review of applied settings 1995- 2015. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 41(3), 9-19.
Piotrowski, Z. A. (1957). Percept analysis. The MacMillan Coy, New York.
Pyle, W.H. (1913). Examination of School Children. Mac millan, New York.
Rapaport, D., Gill, M.M. & Schafer, R. (1968). Diagnostic Psychological Testing, International University Press, Inc. New York.
Roemer, G. (1967). The Rorschach and Roemer Symbol Test Series. Journal of Nervous Mental Diseases, 144, 185-197.
Schaefer, R. (1954). Psychoanalytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing. Grune& Stratton, Inc., New York.
Schaefer, R. (1960). Bodies in Schizophrenic Rorschach Responses. J. of Projective Tech. & Personality Assessment, 24, 267-281.
Weiner, I.B. (2003). Principles of Rorschach Interpretation, Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wentinck, C. (1972).The Human Figure. Livingston, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.
Whipple, G.M. (1910). Manual of Mental & Physical tests, Warwick & York Baltimore Chapter XI, Test Inkblots pp 430-435
Zilboorg, G. (1962). Psychoanalysis and Religion., New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy.
Zubin, J., Eron, L. D. & Schumer, F. (1965).An Experimental Approach to Projective Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
Alreja, S., Mishra, D.K., Sengar, K.S., Singh, A.R. &Chaudhury, S. (2009). SIS-II Profile of Medical Practitioners, 16, 178-179.
Alreja, S., Mishra, D.K., Varghese, M.M., Sengar, K.S., & Singh, A. R. (2009). SIS-II Profile of Mentally Retarded Children,16,51-54
Bailey, C J. &Murstein, B. I. (1996). Paranoia Assessment with the SIS-II: In a College Sample. 3, 109-122.
Bala, K., Mishra, D.K. & Jahan, M. (2010). SIS-II Profile of Patient with Antisocial Personality: A case report, 17, 178-179
Banerjee, S., Mukhopadhyaya, A & Singh, U. (1998). An In depth Study of Somatization in Heroin Addicts thru SIS-I & Rorschach Inkblot Test. 5,33-39.
Basu, J. & De, S. (1997). Utility of Projective Tests in the Psychological Assessment of Transsexual Patients: A Case Study Approach, 4, 41-55.
Basu, J. & Nandy, R.(2004). Substance Dependence, General Mental Health and Somatization Responses : A Study of Ganja Smokers, Tobacco Smokers and Non- Smokers, 11, 5-84.
Basu, J. (2014). Psychologists‟ Ambivalence toward Ambiguity: Relocating the Projective Test Debate for Multiple Interpretative Hypotheses, 21(1), 25-
36.
Bellamy, E. N. (1995). Hospitalized Suicidal Patients and The Somatic Video Procedure: A descriptive Study. 2, 85-91.
Bhogta, S.K., Roy, S. Jahan, M., Sengar, K.S. & Singh,
A.R. (2014).SIS-II Profile of Patients with Thalassemia, 21(2), 119-12.
Brady, D. (1995). A study of Somatic Inkblot Series : Application in Medical Setting, 2, 129-134.
Bram A. D. & Yalof J. (2018).Two Contemporary Rorschach Systems: Views of Two Experienced Rorschachers on the CS and R-PAS, 25, 35-43
Brock, D., Cassell, W.A., Tyrone, C., Maureen, C., Dubey, B.L., Halia, J., Leigh, R. & Laurel, S. (2015). SIS Symbols of PTSD & the Need for Empathy in Therapy, 22(1), 3-8.
Campos, R.C. (2011). It might be what I am: Looking at the use of Rorschach in psychological assessment, 18(1), 28-38.
Cassell, M. A., Cassell, W. A. Dubey, B. L., Dwivedi, P., Molchanov, E, O‟Roark, A.M. & Routh, L.C. (1999) . A Video Projective Technique for PTSD in Women, 6,3-28.
Cassell, W, A. & Dubey, B. L. (2003).Interpreting Inner World through Somatic Imagery: Manual of SIS. Anchorage (USA).
Cassell, W, A. & Dubey, B. L. (2004). Somatic Inkblot Series: Historical Background and Earlier Projects, 11, 11-18
Cassell, W, A. & Dubey, B. L. (2004a). A Nervous System based Model for SIS Inkblot Projection and Consultation, 11, 95-104.
Cassell, W. A. & Dubey, B. L. (2006).Tracing the Roots of Violence by associating Dream and SIS Images: A Vicarious Visit to an Adolescent‟s Birthday Party, 13(2), 85-106.
Cassell, W. A. & Dubey, B. L. (2007). Restructuring Rorschach Pathological Body Symbolism in the Somatoform Disorders with Truth Serum Behavior Therapy, 14, 20-29.
Cassell, W. A. & Dubey, B. L. (1996).The Use of the Rorschach and SIS in Releasing Somatised Grief, 3, 3 -32.
Cassell, W. A. & Dubey, B. L. (1996a). Efficacy of the Booklet and Monochromatic Version of the SIS in a Case of Repeated Miscarriages, 3, 131-145.
Cassell, W. A. & Dubey, B. L. (1997). Therapeutic Dream Stimulation with SIS- Video, 4, 3-23.
Cassell, W. A. & Dubey, B. L. (2000). Inkblot Responses as an Aid to Therapy, 7,3-10.
Cassell, W. A. & Dubey, B. L. (2002).Application of Somatic Inkblot Series-I: New Scoring System, 9, 5-22.
Cassell, W. A. & Dubey, B. L.(1998). Application of Somatic Inkblot Series in Personality
assessment, Screening, Diagnosis and Therapy, 5,3-32.
Cassell, W. A. & Dubey, B. L.(1998a). Mental Disorders Triggered by Exposure to Violent Imagery in the Media and in Electronic Games, 5,87-104.
Cassell, W. A. & Fields, D. (1995). Somatic Inkblot Series
- Video: Case Report and Discussion, 2, 3 -18.
Cassell,W.A. (1994). Somatic Inkblot Series: Continuing Rorschach‟s Conceptualization. 1: 3-14.
Cassell, W. A. (1995). Editorial. 2, 93- 95.
Cassell, W. A. (1996). Future Direction of Projective Technique, 3, 91-94.
Cassell, W. A. (1997).Editorial, 4, 87-88.
Cassell, W. A. (1998). Somatic Inkblot Series: A therapeutic tool for 21st Century, 4, 1-2.
Cassell, W. A. (1998).The Somatic Inkblot Series and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). 4, 69-70.
Cassell, W. A. (2001). SIS Explorations of Human Consciousness, 8, 3-14.
Cassell, W. A. (2002).Editorial: Intellectual Struggle in Advancing SIS Knowledge, 9, 1.
Cassell, W. A. (2004).Editorial: SIS Lessons, 11 (1), 73-4 Cassell, W. A. (2005).Presidential Address: SIS
Stimulation of Beacon Imagery, 12, 3-8
Cassell, W. A. (2005a). Editorial: Evidence Based Medicine and the SIS, 12, 2, 85
Cassell, W. A. (2005b). Assessing Suicidal/Homicidal Impulses with the SIS, 12 (2), 99-106.
Cassell, W. A. (2006).SIS Cognitive Psychotherapy for Spouse Induced PTSD, 13, 25-36.
Cassell, W. A. (2007). Editorial: Historical Periods in SIS Theory and Practice, 14, 1-2.
Cassell, W. A. (2007a). Body Consciousness in Exhibitionism, 14, 3-13.
Cassell, W. A. (2007b). Desensitization Therapy for Body Image Anxiety, 14, 14-19.
Cassell, W. A. (2008). Editorial: Basing SIS Theory in Psychophysiologic Reality,15, 1-2.
Cassell, W. A. (2008a). Viewing Holocaust Nightmares through the Lens of SIS Imagery: A Psycho- biographical Study, 15, 1, 3-24.
Cassell, W. A. Dubey, B. L. & Roth, G. J. (1997). Medical, Psychological and Spiritual Application of the SIS Inkblots, 4, 89-112.
Cassell, W. A., Dubey, A. & Dubey, B. L. (2000). SIS Projective Responses in PTSD and Dissociative Disorder, 7,93-108.
Cassell, W. A., Dubey, B. L., Molchanov, E. & Routh, L.C. (1999). Stimulating Beacon images for meditation and projective psychotherapy, 6,7-30.
Cassell, W. A., Illardi, F.J., Collins, A., Mishra, M. & Dubey, B.L. (2001).Optimizing Spiritual Healing by Assessing Dream and SIS Imagery, 8, 75-94.
Cassell, W. A., Schaeck, A.M. &Mohn, D. (2002).
Symbolism in Violent Hallucinations, 9, 81-92.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2008).The Mutilated Breast Syndrome - SIS Augmentation of Psychotherapy in Postpartum Onset OCD, 15,103-112.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2009). SIS and Sand Tray Psychotherapy of Suicidal Adolescents, 14(2), 87-97
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2009b). Content Validity of SIS-I and SIS-II Booklet Version, 16, 58-59.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2010). Questionable Validity of Projective Technique and SIS Intervention, 17, 4-15.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2010a). Infectious Suicidal Imagery in Combat PTSD, 17, 27-37.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2010b). SIS II-Video and Treatment of Alcoholism, 17, 104-119.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2011). Childhood PTSD Roots of Borderline Personality Disorder- Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder (ICU- 10), 18, 3-9.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2012a). Spiritual Warfare and SIS Spiritual Symbols, 19(2), 80-90.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2014). Dream and SIS Symbolism in Bereavement, 21(1) 3-10.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2016).A SIS-II Projective Case Study of Becker‟s Concept “Denial of Death”, 23(1), 2-11.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2017). Efficacy of a Case of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, 24(2), 74-82.
Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L.(2012). SIS Screening for Dangerous Impulses- A Blog Based Training Exercise for Students, 19, 5-17.
Cassell, W.A. (2009). Editorial: SIS Portraits of the Inner Mental World Painted by Blog Pooling of Interpretations, 16, 1-2.
Cassell, W.A. (2010). Editorial: The SIS Journal as a Cyberspace Scientific Meeting Hall for Sharing Scientific Based Truths, 17,1-3.
Cassell, W.A. (2010b). Editorial: Genetic Determinants of SIS Projection, 17, 101-103.
Cassell, W.A. (2011). Editorial: Changing Personal and Professional SIS Perspectives, 18, 1-3.
Cassell, W.A. (2011a). Editorial: Dissolving Death Anxiety with Yoga Empowered, 18, 123-128.
Cassell, W.A. (2012). Editorial: “Wizard of OZ” Empathy Deficient Sociopaths - A Challenge for SIS Unmasking, 19 (1), 1-4.
Cassell, W.A. (2012a). Editorial: Memory Interaction with SIS Perception” Versus “Projection”, 19 (2),
77-79.
Cassell, W.A. (2013). Editorial: SIS Psychotherapeutic Applications, 20 (1), 1-2.
Cassell, W.A. (2013a). Editorial: A Somatic Inkblot Series “bucket list” Exercise, 20(2), 75-77.
Cassell, W.A. (2014). Editorial: A Spiritual “Afterlife” Death Dream, 21(1) 1-2.
Cassell, W.A. (2014a). Editorial: Religious Symbols and Astronomical Projections, 21(2), 65-67.
Cassell, W.A. (2015). Editorial: New Name, Old Game, 22 (1), 1-2.
Cassell, W.A. (2015a). Editorial, 22(2), 75-79. Cassell, W.A. (2017). Editorial, 24 (1), 1-2.
Cassell, W.A., (2013b). SIS Illumination of Unreported Violent Impulses, Wilfred A. Cassell, 20 (2), 78-
80.
Cassell, W.A., Charles, T., Dubey, B.L. & Janssen, H. (2014). SIS Incites Long Term PTSD Combat Memories & Survivor Guilt, 21 (2), 68-80.
Cassell, W.A., Dubey, B.L. & Menon, K. (2015). What does it Symbolize When a Woman Dreams of Having a Penis? , 22,80-82.
Cassell, W.A., Dubey, B.L., Charles, T. & Dwivedi, P. (2013).Perceiving One‟s Own Dead Body and Death Anxiety Dissolving SIS Spiritual Symbols, 20(1), 3-17.
Cassell, W.A., Dubey, B.L., Dwivedi, P. & Singh, A.(2009).How to Delete Viruses and
Reconfigure the Brain's Hard Drive, 16, 91-116. Cassell, W.A., Dwivedi, P. & Dubey, B.L. (2009a). SIS
Living Images and Psychotherapy: A Case Study, 16, 60-61.
Cassell, W.A., Mohn D., Ilardi, F.J. & Dubey, B. L. (2003).Unmasking the Devil with Projective Technique, 10, 167-188.
Cassell, W.A., Pandey, P., Tiwari, A., Mishra, N. & Dubey, B.L. (2013). SIS Guided Therapy for an Adolescent Girl‟s Tension Headaches, 20(1), 49- 54.
Cassell, W.A., Tyrone C.T., Dubey, B.L. & Janssen, H. (2014). SIS Incites Long Term PTSD Combat Memories and Survivor Guilt, 21(2), 68-80.
Cervigni, A. (2013). Therapeutic Intervention through SIS Imagery: Two Case Studies, 20(2), 122-127.
Chakraborty, R, Dasgupta, M & Sanyal, N. (2015). A Comparative Psychosocial Study of Aggression, Attachment Style and Personality among Orphans and Normal Children, 22, 103-114.
Chaudhury, S, Sudarsanan, S, Seby,K., Salujha, S.K., Srivastava, K., Kundeyawala, S. M. & Rathee, S.P.(2007). Rorschach Responses of Older Indians, 14, 30-43.
Chaudhury, S. & Jyothi, S.G. (1998). Piotrowski‟s Alpha Index Validated with Schizophrenics Varying in Duration of Illness, 5, 41-45.
Chaudhury, S. & Jyoti, S.G. (1997). Diagnostic Utility of Piotrowski‟s Alpha Index, 4, 35-40.
Chaudhury, S. &Jyoti, S.G.(1996). Relationship between Homosexuality & Paranoid Schizophrenia:A Rorschach Study, 3, 147-152.
Chaudhury, S. &Sundari, G.S. (1996).Thiesens‟ Pattern in Rorschach of Adolescents with Schizophrenia,
3, 69-75.
Chaudhury, S. Prakash, J., Walia, T.S., Seby, K., Sukumaran, S. & Kumari, D. (2010). Psychological Distress in Alcohol Dependence Syndrome, 17, 38-44.
Chaudhury, S., John TR, &Jyothi, SG. (1999a). Validation of Weiner‟s Signs in Schizophrenia. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 6, 38- 44.
Chaudhury, S., John, T. R., Bhatoe, H. S. & Rohatgi,S. (1999). Evaluation of Piotrowski‟s Organic Signs of Head Injury. 6, 53-57.
Chaudhury, S., John, T.R. & Rohatgi,S. (1998).Evaluation of Piotrowski‟s Organic Signs in Epilepsy, 5, 127-130.
Chaudhury, S., Murthy, P.S., Banerjee, I., Kumari, S., Sukumaran, S.K., & Vikash, R. (2009). Psychological distress associated with Fractures of Upper and Lower Limbs, 16, 18-23.
Chaudhury, S., Raju, M.S.V.K., Dubey, B.L., John, T.R., Saluja, S.K. & Srivastava, K.(2001).Alopecia Areata: Evaluation Using Psychological Tests and the Somatic Inkblot Test, 8, 143-148,
Chaudhury,S., Murthy,P.S., Banerjee,A., Kumari,D. &Alreja, S. (2011). Poly-trauma Survivors: Assessment using Rating Scales and SIS –
II, 18(1), 39-49.
Chaudhury,S., Saldanha, D., Srivastava,K., Jyothi,S.G., Sundari, G.S. & Augustine, M. (2007a). Rorschach Responses of Indian Children and Adolescents with Psychiatric Disorders, 14(2), 150-161.
Cinzia, S. & Ferro R. (1998).SIS-I and Body Image Evaluation in Subjects Suffering from
Series Obesity, 5, 105-113.
Daini, S. & Bernardini, L. (2007). Emotional Feelings in Eating Disorders: a Rorschach test Quantitative Analysis, 14, 76-84.
Daini, S. C., A. Manzo, C.M.& Mancano, G. (2008). A Projective Sight on Male Anorexia: A Rorschach test Exploration, 14, 65-72.
Daini, S., Manzo,A., Pisani, F. & Tancredi, A. (2010).Attempted Suicide: psychopathology & Wartegg Test indicators, 14, 171-177.
Darolia, C.R. & Joshi, H.L. (2004). Psychometric Evaluation of a Short Form of Holtzman Inkblot Technique, 2, 124-132.
Dasgupta, M. (2013). The Efficacy of Dance/ Movement Therapy as Revealed through the Qualitative Lens of SIS-II, 20(2),110-121.
Dasgupta, T. Dasgupta, R. & Dwivedi, P. (2012). Somatic Inkblots imagery in Transsexual: A Case study, 19,61-65.
Devi, S. G. & Kaliappan, K. V. (1997).Improvement of Psychosomatic Disorders among Tension Headache Subjects Using Behavior Therapy and Somatic Inkblot Series. 4, 113-120.
Dewangan, R.L. & Roy, P.K. (2015).A study on Social desirability Biasness in Rorschach Inkblot Test, 22, 24-29.
Dewangan, R.L.,Basu, S.& Roy, P. K..(2014). Rorschach Response in Somatization Problem among College Students, 21, 42-48.
Dharamvir, Pershad, D., Dubey, B.L. & Mann, S. B. S. (1994). Body Imagery in Vertigo Patients, 1, 65-
72.
Dosajh, N. L. & Dosajh, R. (1999). A Case of Family Therapy, 6(2), 4-6.
Dosajh, N. L. (1995). A New Combination of Therapies for Treatment of Schizophrenia of Less than 5 Years Duration, 2, 135-138.
Dosajh, N. L. (1996). Editorial. 3, 89-90.
Dosajh, N. L. (1996a). Projective Technique with Particular Reference to Inkblot Tests.3, 159-68.
Dosajh, N. L. (1997). Some Experience with Somatic Inkblot Series -II, 4, 25-33.
Dosajh, N. L. (1997a). How a Single Image of SIS-II Leads to Complete Psycho diagnosis, 4(2), 152- 154.
Dosajh, N. L. (1998). Use of SIS-II and other Projective Tests in the Treatment of a Case of Schizophrenia, 5, 46-50.
Dosajh, N. L. (1998a). Projective Psychology in India, 5(2), 83-86.
Dosajh, N. L. (1998b). Somatic Inkblot Series- An Excellent Psycho Diagnostic Tool, 5(2), 136-138.
Dosajh, N. L. (1999).Maintaining Mental Health of the Aged through Psycho Synthesis, 6, 58-60.
Dosajh, N. L. (1999a). How Responses of Spiritual Urge Leads to Psychological Troubles, 6, 61-64.
Dosajh, N. L. (1999b). New Horizons in Psychotherapy, 6(2), 1-3.
Dubey, A. & Dubey, B.L.(2012). Application of SIS in Business Organization, 19, 43-47.
Dubey, B. L. & Cassell, W.A. (2000). Inkblot responses as an aid to Therapy, 7,3-10
Dubey, B. L. (2000). SIS Technology in Millennium Year, 7(2), 91-92.
Dubey, B. L. (2003). Editorial: SIS as an Electronic Aide to Assessment and Therapeutic Intervention, 10(2), 165-166.
Dubey, B. L. (2005). Editorial: SIS as an Electronic Aide to Assessment, 12, 1-2.
Dubey, B. L. (2006). Editorial: Somatic Inkblot Series: Assessment and Therapeutic Tool, 13(2), 83-84.
Dubey, B. L.,Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, A.(2005). Impact of Number of Responses on the Interpretation of Rorschach Indices,12, 27-48.
Dubey, B.L. & Dwivedi, P. (2015).Therapeutic intervention thru SIS in a case of Dissociative Convulsion Disorder, 22(2), 99-102.
Dubey, B.L. (1996). SIS as a Projective Psychotherapeutic Tool for the 21st Century- Presidential Address, 3(2), 95-107.
Dubey, B.L. (2005a). SIS Stimulation of Beacon Imagery, 12,, 3-8.
Dubey, B.L., Agrawal, A. & Palia, R.S. (2001).Personality Profile and HRD Intervention in a Telephone Cables Coy. 8(2), 127-134.
Dubey, B.L., Ajith, C., Gupta, Somesh, & Kumar, B. (2004). Role of SIS in Psychosexual Disorder in India, 11(2),115-120.
Dubey, B.L., Cassell, W.A., Dwivedi, P. & Mishra, M. (1995).Inner Cry through Somatic Inkblot Series. 2(2), 119-128
Dubey, B.L., Cassell, W.A., Pershad, D. & Dwivedi, P. (1995a). Diagnostic Utility of Somatic Inkblot Series, 2(2), 77-84.
Dubey, B.L., Kumar, R. & Dubey, A. (2018).Somatic Inkblot Series and the Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health: Inception to Silver Jubilee, 25(1), 5-34
Dubey, B.L., Mishra, M., Dwivedi, C.B. & Mishra, N. (1994). Diagnostic and Therapeutic Utility of SIS- II and Rorschach, 1,18-25.
Dubey, B.L., Pandey, P., Tiwari, A. & Mishra, N. (2012). Assessing Sexuality “Homosexuality, 19,121-125.
Dubey, S.N. & Dubey, B.L. (2005). Effect of Psychological Intervention through SIS-I Images on Police Personnel, 12(2),153-158.
Dwivedi, C.B., Mishra, M. & Dubey, B. L. (1995). Diagnostic Significance of the Indices of SIS – II and the Rorschach, 2(2),165-170.
Dwivedi, P., Mishra, M. & Cassell, W. A. (1994). SIS- Video in Adolescents, 1, 27-32.
Dwivedi, P., Mishra, M. & Mishra, N. (1998). Somatic Inkblot Series on a Sexually Traumatized Female, 5(2),150-153.
Dwivedi, S.D. (2015). Sensitivity of Exner‟s Comprehensive Scoring System in Detecting Specific Delusions in Psychotic Patients: Preliminary Observations, 22, 58-61.
George, L. & Kumar, R. (2008). Diagnostic Efficiency of New Rorschach Depression Index (DEPI), 15(2),118-127.
Giovanna Gaetani, G., Fiorenzo,L., Lucchini, A., Giovanni, S., Vitali, R. & Ferro R.(1995). Corporal Perception in HIV Positive and Negative Heorin- Addicts Assessed with SIS-I, 2(2), 96-110.
Goel, D. S., Rathee, S. P., Saldanha, M., Chawla, A. S. & Dubey, B. L. (1990).SIS-I in Coronary Heart Disease. Proceedings of first SIS International Conference, Chandigarh, India, April.
Gupta, N.& Singh, A. (2012). Enhancing Productivity and Culture through SIS Intervention: A Case Study, 19 (1), 71-75.
Gupta, N., Singh, A. & Singh, R.A. (2015). Management of Depression in India, 22(2), 115-118.
Jain R., Mohanty, S. & Kumar, R. (2016). SIS-II Indices and Suggestibility, 23(2), 115-117.
Jain R., Singh, B., Mohanty, S. & Kumar, R. (2005). SIS-I and Rorschach Diagnostic Indicators of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, 12, 141-152.
Kandhari, S., Sharma, J. & Kumar, R. (2010). Discriminating Power of the Comprehensive Scoring System for SIS-I, 17,16-22
Kandhari, S., Sharma, J. & Kumar, R. (2010a). Development of a Comprehensive Scoring System for SIS-I, 17(2), 120-125.
Kandhari, S., Sharma, J., Kumar, R. & Kumar., D. (2011). Gender Differences in SIS-I Profile of Normal Population, 118, 14-21.
Kandhari,S., Sharma, J., Kumar, D., Kandhari, N. & Kumar,R. (2012).Efficacy of Comprehensive Scoring System for SIS-I in Discriminating Mania, 19, 35-42.
Kaslow, N.J., Flanagan, P.D., Carlin, E.R., Harris, R., Hickman, E.E. & Reviere, S.L. (2014). Empirically-Supported Case Studies of Creativity in Writers in Psychoanalysis, 21, 11-24.
Kaur, R. & Verma, S. K. (1998). A Correlational Study of Rorschach& SIS-II Variables in Psychiatric Patients,5(2), 115-118.
Khromov, A. B.(2001). Psychological Characteristics of Subjects with Achondroplasia & Traumatically Shortened Extremities, 8,53-64.
Khromov, A. B., Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (1999).A Comparative Study of Personality Problems of Russian and American Female Adolescents. 6,29-33.
Khromov, A. B., Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (1999). Some Personality Correlates of SIS Variables: Russian Experiments, 6, 35-40.
Khromov, A. B., Starbuck, G., Birkedahl, M. & Dubey,
B.L. (2002). The Reflective Analysis of the Personality Problems of the Young Female Subjects: A Cross Cultural Approach, 9,49-56.
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, 23,12-21.
Khromov, A.B. (2009). Comparison of Psychometric Characteristics of Rorschach and Cassell‟ Projective Techniques, 16,32-36.
Khromov, A.B., Pandey, R. & Dubey, B.L. (2004). Students Attitude towards Vital Problems and SIS-I, 11, 4-10
Kohli, A. & Kaur, R. P. (2002). Rorschach Profile and its Relationship with PEN Questionnaire in Borderline Psychosis, 9, 109-113.
Kruthi, M., Mahboubeh C. & Manickam, LSS. (2015). SIS-II Profiles of Iranian Couples: An Exploratory Study,22 (2),124-129.
Kumar, D. & Kumar, R. (2009). Correlation between Rorschach and SIS-I Indices in Normal Group, 16, 55-57.
Kumar, D., Dubey, B.L. & Kumar, R. (2006). Gender Differences in SIS-I Profile of Manic Patients, 13,61-64.
Kumar, D., Dubey, B.L. & Kumar,R.(2007). Inter Correlations of Nine SIS-I Indices, 14,59-63.
Kumar, D., Kumar, J. & Kumar, R. (2005). Diagnostic Indicators on SIS-I and Rorschach in Manic &Depressive Patients, 12,53-60.
Kumar, R. & Singh, A.R. (2007). A Comparison of Somatic Inkblot Series-I Indices in Normal Children and Adults, 14, 44-47.
Kumar, R. & Khess, C.R.J. (2005). Diagnostic Efficiency of Schizophrenia Index and Perceptual-Thinking Index in Schizophrenia and Mania, 12(2), 115- 122.
Kumar, R. & Khess, C.R.J. (2004). Special Scores of Rorschach Comprehensive System in Schizophrenia and Mania: A Comparative Study, 11(2), 85-90.
Kumar, R. & Khess, C.R.J. Kumar, R. (2005). An Extended Scoring System of SIS-I, 12(2), 123- 128.
Kumar, R. (2000). Meta-Analysis on the Findings of SIS- II, 7(2), 141-147.
Kumar, R. (2005). An Extended Scoring System of SIS-I, 12(2), 123-128.
Kumar, R. (2009). Factor Structure of SIS-I in Adults, 16(2), 124-127.
Kumar, R. (2010). SIS Imagery in Depression with Somatization – Therapeutic Intervention, 17(2), 69-72.
Kumar, R. (2015). Areas of Research in Somatic Inkblot Series, 22(2), 130-138.
Kumar, R., Jahan, M, Dutta, M. & Deuri, S. K (2016). SIS-
II Profile of Non-chronic and Chronic Schizophrenia Patients, 23(2),102-105.
Kumar, R., Kandhari, S. & Dubey, B.L. (2008). Estimation of the Contribution of Gender in Productivity on SIS-I, 15, 48-51.
Kumar, S., Mohanty, S. & Kumar, R. (2003). SIS-l Profile and its Correlation with Rorschach in Manic Patients, 10(2), 201-204.
Kumar, S., Singh, R. & Mohanty, S.(2001). A Study of Somatic Inkblot-I in Hospitalized Male Chronic Schizophrenics, 8, 31-34.
Kumar, S., Singh, R. & Mohanty, S.(2004).Comparative Study of SIS-I Indices between Schizophrenic & Manic Patients, 11(2), 91-94.
Kumar, S., Singh, R. Mohanty, S. & Kumar, R. (2006). SIS-I and Rorschach in Schizophrenia: A Co- relational Study, 13(2), 120-124.
Kumari, D., Prakash, J., Singh, A.R. & Chaudhury, S. (2009). Personality Profile of Schizophrenia and Bipolar Affective Disorder (Mania) on SIS-II, 16 (2),134-137.
Lal, R. (2004). SIS with Physically Disabled Adolescents, SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 11(2), 121-123.
Mahapatra, J., Sahoo, D., Mishra, P.K. & Kumar, R. (2009). SIS-I Indices as a Measure of Ego Strength in Schizophrenia,16(2), 152-154.
Mahapatra, J., Sahoo, D., Mishra, P.K. & R. Kumar, R. (2009a).Assessment of Ego-strength through Rorschach Indices in Schizophrenia, 17, 23-26.
Mahapatra, J., Sahoo, D., Mishra, P.K. & Kumar, R.(2011). Evaluating Ego-Strength in Depression on SIS-I Indices, 18 (1), 69-76.
Manickam L.S.S. & Suhani, B.T. (2014). Marital Conflict: An Exploration of Relationship issues in Couples through SIS-II, 21, 37-41.
Manickam, L.S.(2013). Consistency of Response Pattern on Rorschach after an Interval of 14 Years: A Case Report, 20(1), 62-67.
Manickam, L.S.S. & Suhani B.T. (2003). Psychotherapeutic Usefulness of SIS-II in a Male with Somatoform Disorder, 10(2),9-218.
Manickam, L.S.S. Suhani B.T. & Jasseer, J. (2004). Psychotherapy of a Male Patient with Dissociative Convulsive Disorder: SIS Breaks the Resistance, 11,36-44.
Manickam, L.S.S.& Dubey, B.L.(2005). Rorschach Test in India: Historical Review and Perspectives for Future Action,11:61-78.
Manickam, L.S.S., Ghanbary, M. &Kruthi, M. (2013). Therapeutic Effectiveness of SIS - II in a Case of Psychogenic Cough, 20(2),91-97.
Martin, H & Frackowiak, M. (2017).The Value of Projective/Performance-based Techniques in Therapeutic Assessment, 24(2), 91- 95.
Michael J. Gournaris, Irene W. Leigh & Ross E. M. (2005). Consistency of Structural Summary Scores in Computerized Rorschach Programs, 12, 20-26.
Milne, L.C. & Philip Greenway (2000). Sexual Content in Rorschach and Perceived Control of Internal States, 7(2), 119-126.
Mishra, D., Khalique, A. & Kumar, R.(2010b). Rorschach Profile of Manic Patients, 17(2), 158-164.
Mishra, D.K, Kumar, R. & Prakash, J. (2009).Rorschach Thought Disorders in various Psychiatric Conditions, 16, 8-12.
Mishra, D.K., Alreja, S., Jahan, M. & Singh, A.R. (2010). SIS – II Profile of Epileptic Patients, 17(2), 187- 191.
Mishra, D.K., Jahan, M. & Singh, A.R. (2010a). Dissociative Convulsion Disorder: A Case Study, 17(2), 73-75.
Mishra, M. & Dwivedi, C.B. (1997). Content Scale Based Diagnostic Compatibility of the SIS – II with Rorschach Test in Normal, Neurotics and Schizophrenics, 4(2), 121-140.
Mishra, M. & Mishra,N. (2001). Therapeutic Utility of SIS- II, 8,51- 52.
Mishra, S & Gupta, M.P. (2008). Rorschach Profile of Neurotic Patients, 15(2), 134-144.
Mitra, G. & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2000). Psychological Factors in Drug Addicts and Normals: A Comparative study, 7, 53-78.
Mitra, G. & Mukhopadhyay, A. (1996). SIS and Social Anxiety - an Assessment of Personality Factors of Drug Addicts, 3(2),153-164.
Mitra, S. & Sanyal, N. (2010). A Single Case in Interpretative Wrappings of Multiple Psychological Theories, 17(2), 165-170.
Mitra, S. & Sanyal, N. (2015). Cultural Basis of Psychopathology and Modified Therapeutic Stances: Case Illustrations, 22: 1, 48-57.
Mohn, D. (2002). Application of the SIS Board: Editorial, 9(2), 79-80.
Mukhopdhyay, A, Banerjee, S. & Mitra, G.(1996) Comprehensive Profile of Personality Characteristic of Male Drug addicts, 3,33-41.
Murstein, B. I. (1995). Editorial, 2, 1-2.
Nehra, A.,Raghunathan, M., Verma, S. K. & Mann, S. B.
Nicolini, P. (2000). The Corporeal Perception in Subjects with Psychosomatic Disorders Evaluated with the SIS-I Test, 7(2),127-132.
Nicolini, P. (2002). Diagnostic Value of SIS-I and EDI-2 Tests in the Obese Patients- Presentation of a Clinical Case, 9(2): 133-152.
Pandey, P., Tiwari, A. & Mishra, N. (2011). Dissociative Convulsion Disorder: A Case Study, 18(2), 173-176.
Pandey, R. (1995). Projective Measure of Alexithymia and the SIS, 2(2), 145-152.
Pandey, R., Misra, M. & Dwivedi, C. B. (1996). A Quantitative Analysis of Liked and Disliked SIS-II Images, 3(2), 123-130.
Pandey, R., Misra, M., Mishra, R. & Dwivedi, C. B. (1999). Stability of SIS-II Response Contents Across Time and Predesignated Image Clusters, 6, 31-37.
Pandey, R., Tripathi, V.R.M. & Tripathi, S. (2001). Age Related Changes in SIS-II Response Contents, 8,35-40.
Pandey, R., Misra, M & Dwivedi, CB.(2003).Diagnostic Significance of Sex Responses on SIS Sex & Non-Sex Images,10(2),205-208.
Panek, P. E. (2001). Editorial: Projective Psychology in the New Millennium: Issues and Challenges, 8(2):73-74.
Panek, P. E., Skowronski, J.S. & Wagner, E.E. (2002). The Advisability of Routinely Computing Percentages when Comparing Groups Across Projective Test Variables, 9, 2-4.
Pershad, D. & Dubey, B.L. (1994). Reliability and Validity of Somatic Inkblot Series in India, 1, 33-38
Pershad, D. & Verma, S. K. (1995). Diagnostic Significance of Content Analysis of SIS-II, 2(2), 139-144.
Pershad, D., Verma, S .K. & Bhagat, K. (1997) Body Image Disturbances in Psychiatric Cases, 4(2), 75-84.
Petrosky, E.M. (2006). The Relationship between Early Memories and the Rorschach Inkblot Test, 13, 37-54.
Petrosky, E.M.(2005). The Relationship between the Morbid Response of the Rorschach& Self- Reported Depressive Symptomatology, 12(2),2, 87-98.
Piotrowski, C. (2015). Clinical instruction on projective techniques in the USA: A review of academic training settings 1995-2014, 22(2), 83-92.
Piotrowski, C. (2017). Editorial: The Linchpin on the Future of Projective Techniques: The Precarious Status of Personality Assessment in the (overcrowded) Professional Psychology Curriculum, 24(2), 71-73.
Piotrowski, C. (2017). Rorschach Research through the Lens of Bibliometric Analysis: Mapping Investigatory Domain, 24,, 34-38.
Piotrowski, C. (2018). Editorial:25 Years in Promoting Projective Assessment: A Silver Jubilee Tribute, 25: (1), 1-4.
Piotrowski, C. (2018). Sentence Completion Methods: A Summary Review of 70 Survey-based Studies of Training and Professional Settings, 25(1), 60-75
Piotrowski, C. (2018). The Rorschach in Research on Neurocognitive Dysfunction: An Historical Overview, 1936-2016, 25 (1), 44-53
Priyamvada, R., Kumari, S., Ranjan, R., Prakash, J., Singh, A. R. & Chaudhury, S. (2009).Rorschach Profile of Schizophrenia and Depression, 16, 37- 40.
Radheshyam (2007). SIS in Paranoid Ideation: A Case Study, 14(2), 145-149.
Radheshyam, Cassell, W.A. & Dubey, B.L. (2009). SIS Detection of Invisible Imagery in Bipolar Depression, 16, 24-31.
Ramachandra, S. & Chaturvedi, S. K., (1995). Body Imagery in SIS Test, 2, 53-60.
Ramachandra, S. (1994). Rorschach and the Creative Artists, 1, 39-50.
Ranjan, J.K, Kumari,A., Kumari, D., Prakash, J. & Sengar, K.S. (2008). SIS–II Profile of Alcohol Dependence Patients, 15(2),157-162.
Rathee, S. P, Pardal, P.K. & John,T.R.(1998). Diagnostic Validity of SIS-II in Psychpathological Cases of Armed Forces, 5(2),139-144.
Rathee, S. P. & Singh, A. (1996). A Comparative Study of Male and Female on SIS-I, 3, 43-49.
Rathee, S. P., Goel, D. S., Chawla, M. L. & Saldanha, D. (1994). A Study of Somatic Inkblot Series-I in Coronary Cases, 1, 51-64.
Rathee, S. P., Pandey, V. & Singh, A. (1995). Diagnostic Efficacy of SIS-II amongst Psychiatric Patents of Armed Forces: A Preliminary Study, 2, 61-66.
Rathee, S.P., Pardal, P.K. & John, T.R. (2002). Diagnostic Value of SIS-II Among Sub-Groups of Psychotic and Neurotic Patients of Armed Forces, 9, 38-48.
Riquelme, J.J. & Erna P. (2000). Rorschach in Women Victims of Rape, 8(2),133-140.
Sachacher, B. & Jahan, M. (2014). SIS-II Profile of patient with Body Dysmorphic Disorder: A Case report, 21, 59-61.
Sahay, M. & Srivastava, P. K. (1994). Somatic Inkblot Series-II in Male Transsexuals, 1(2), 73-78.
Saldanha, D. & Dubey, B.L. (1995). Effect of Sodium Pentothal on SIS Video- A Images, 2, 19-28.
Saldanha, D. (2002). Profile of Militants: An Attempt to Study the Mind of Militants, 9, 23-32.
Saldanha, D., Bhattacharya, L., Srivastava, K. & Dubey,
B.L. (2011). SIS-I Profile of Psychosexual Dysfunction, 18, 62-68.
Saldanha, D., Menon, P, Guliani, S., Goyal, V, Garg, M. Tewari, A. & Agrawal,M. (2013).Effect of therapeutic intervention in a Case of Schizophrenia through SIS-II and Rorschach, 20, 55-61.
Sanyal, N. (2013). Somatic Inkblot Series-II: The Therapeutic Window of Emotionally-Withdrawn Children, 20(2), 81-90.
Sanyal, N. (2016). Editorial: Projective Techniques True “Mirror” of Self, 23(2), 65.
Sanyal, N., Dasgupta M. & Chatterjee M.M. (2005). Who is Afraid of Rorschach Inkblots? Projective Studies in India an End Century Assessment, 12(2),107-114.
Sanyal, N., Dasgupta, M. & Agarwal, S.(2011). Penetrative Interpretation of the Inner Self of a Case through Projective Imagery: A Comparative Exploration, 18(2), 155-164.
Sarkar, P., Rathee, S.P. & Neena, N. (1999). Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacotherapy and Bio- Feedback among Cases of Generalized Anxiety Disorder, 6, 69-77.
Savage, G. (1995). Bereavement and Hypnosis: A Case Study, 2, 29-40.
Savage, G. (2001). The Adjunctive Use of a Projective Technique with Hypnotherapy, 8, 41-50.
Savage, G. (2003). The Diagnostic Value of the SIS in Treating a Child with Panic Attacks during the Post-Divorce Period: A Clinical Case Study, 10(2), 219-224.
Schulmeyer, M.K. & Piotrowski, C. (2017). Assessment Practices of Psychologists in the Mental Health System in Bolivia, 24,(2), 109-115.
Sharma, M. G., Sharma, V. & Upadhyay, A. (2013). Effect of Psychotherapy in Phobic Patients & Their Follow-up, 20, 36-41.
Sharma, S., Mishra, D. & Kumar,R. (2013). Personality Characteristic of Juvenile Delinquents as Compared to Non-Delinquents on Rorschach Test, 20(2), 98-105.
Sharma, V.K., Dubey, B.L., Murlidharan, S. & Kumar, B. (1997). Personality Profile of Alopecia Areata with Help of SIS, 4(2), 161-166.
Shweta, Bajpai, R.C., Sengar, K.S., Singh, A.R. & Desai,
N.G. (2010). Rorschach Profile of Indian Adults, 17(2), 180-186.
Singh A. R. (2007). Editorial: SIS: A Journey of Projective Technique from Assessment to Treatment, 14(2), 85-86.
Singh U.& Singh, N. (2008). Effect of School Environments on SIS-II Percepts, 15(2),145-151
Singh, A.R. & Banerjee, K.R. (1996).Efficacy of SIS-II in Discriminating OCD patients and Normal, 3(2), 165-169.
Singh, A.R. & Banerjee, K.R. (2002). Treating Panic Attack with Hypnosis in Combination with RET: A Case Report, 9(2), 105-108.
Singh, A.R. & Dubey, B.L.(1997). Profile of Drug and Alcohol Dependent Cases, 4,69-74.
Singh, A.R., Banerjee, K.R. & Chaudhury, S.(2001). Mental Health During War: An Experience and Lesson from the Past, 8(2),135-140.
Singh, A.R., Dubey, B.L. & Banerjee, K.R. (1997).
Prognostic Utility of SIS-II, 4(2), 141-144.
Singh, A.R., Manjhi, K.C., Dubey, B.L. &Banerjee, K.R. (2001). Profiles of Professional Murderers, 8, 28-
30.
Singh, B., Kashyap, R. & Srivastava, A.K. (2011). Diagnostic Indicators of SIS-I among Non- Paranoid Schizophrenics,18(2),165-167.
Singh, D. K., Majhi, G. & Singh, A.R. (2007). Projective Indices of Creativity: A Pilot Study, 14(2), 2,117- 120.
Singh, D.K., Majhi, G., Prakash, J. & Singh, A.R.(2008). Changes in Rorschach Indices: Pre & Post Treatment Assessment, 15, 42-47
Singh, D.K., Singh, A. & Singh A.R. (2005).Relevance of Beck Norms of Rorschach on Indian Population, 12, 49-52.
Singh, M. P. & Dwivedi, P. (1997).Somatised Pain: A Case Study With The Help of SIS-II, 4,
167-171.
Singh, M. P. & Dwivedi, P. (1998). A Comparative Study of Managers and Students on SIS-II, 5, 63-68.
Singh, M. P. & Mishra, N. (2001). Diagnostic and
Therapeutic Value of SIS-II Test, 8(2), 141-142.
Singh, M. P., Mishra, M & Mishra, N. (1999). Effect of Age and Sex on the Length of the Protocol of SIS-II Images, 6, 50-52.
Singh, M.K. & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2018).SIS Indices in Parents of Children with ADHD and Intervention Steps, 25(1),80-85
Singh, M.P. & Dubey, B.L. (2002). Inter Correlation Among Various Indices of SIS-II, 9(2), 121-132. Singh, M.P., Singh, A. & Dubey, B.L. (1999). Effect of Age and Sex on SIS-II Responses, 6(2), 51-76.
Singh, S.K., Singh, R.K., Singh, D.K. & Prakash,J. (2008). Characteristics of Subjects Who Perceive Female Figure on Card VII of Rorschach Test, 15(2), 113-117.
Singh, U. & Rani, K. (2014a). Gender-Specific Personality Differentials of Suicide Ideation among Adolescents, 21(2), 81-89.
Singh, U. (2006).Distinction of Novelty and Meaning Contexts of Creativity, 13(1), 65-79.
Singh, U. (2006a). Novelty and Meaning Contexts of Creativity vis-a-vis Jensen‟s Level I and level II Abilities, 13(2), 147-160.
Singh, U. (2007). Gender Differences in Factor Structure of SIS-II Responses, 14(2), 110-116.
Singh, U.& Rani, K. (2014). SIS-II Correlates of Suicide Ideation among Adolescents, 21, 49-57.
Singh, U., Verma, N. & Singh, N. (2009). SIS-II Indicators of Creativity, 6 (2), 128-133
Srivastava, A. K. (2002). Somatic Inkblot Series-I: A Meta-Analysis. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 9, 33-37.
Stedman, J.M., Essery, J. & McGeary, C.A. (2018).Projective Personality Assessment: Evidence for a Decline in Training Emphasis, 25(1), 54-59
Tewari, M. K. & Dwivedi, P. (1999). SIS Video in a Case of Depression, 6, 47-49.
Tiwari, A., Pandey, P., Mishra, N. & Dubey,A. (2012). SIS- II Profile of Depressive Patients, 19, 48-55.
Vashistha, K.C. & Bhardwaj, S.(2007). Rorschach Profiles of Mentally Challenged & Severely Hearing Impaired Children, 14(2), 121-128.
Verma, M.K. &Misra, S. (2002). Rorschach Response Patterns of Drug Addicts, 9, 62-64.
Verma, N. & Singh, U. (2014). Effect of Age and Education on SIS-II Percepts, 21(2), 113-118.
Verma, S. K. & Kaur, H. (1999). A Proposed Model for Quantification of Abnormal Somatic Concern on SIS-II, 6, 65-68.
Verma, S. K. & Nehra, A. (1998).Projective Psychotherapy, 5, 59- 62.
Verma, S. K. (1995). Reliability and Validity of Somatic Inkblot Series Test, 2, 67-71.
Verma, S. K. (1996).Editorial: Newer Trends in Inkblot Techniques, 3, 1- 2.
Verma, S. K. (2001) Editorial: SIS as an Instrument of Change, 8,1- 2.
Verma, S. K., Kaur, H. & Bhargava, R. (2000). Distortions of Body Image on SIS-II and DAP, 7,39-43.
Verma, S. K., Pershad, D. & Nehra, R. (1994). Cross- Validation of SIS-II in Psychiatric Population, 1, 15-18.
Verma, S. K., Pershad, D., Bhagat, K. & Kaur, R. (1996) Interdependence of SIS Variables with Personality Traits in Psychiatric Cases, 3, 51-58.
Verma, S. K., Pershad, D., Kaur, R. & Nehra, R. (1995).
Diagnostic Significance of SIS-II, 2, 72-76.
Vimal, P. & Mishra, S. (2003). SIS in a Case of Hypochondriasis, 10(2), 225-226
Vimal, P. (2004). SIS in a Case of Depressive Neurosis, 11, 45-46
Vishwakarma, P., Dwivedi, S. & Kumar, R. (2016).Emotional Intelligence, Exner‟s Special Indices on Rorschach in Schizophrenia, 23 (2), 66-72.
Waehler, C. A., Becky L.T., Kristin E. E., & John M. L. (2008). Dispositional Tendencies Exhibited through Spontaneous Rorschach Card Rotation, 15, 25-34
We gratefully acknowledge the support of our sponsors.
© 2026 Somatic Inkblots. All Rights Reserved.