Case 52: 25 Years in Promoting Projective Assessment: A Silver Jubilee Tribute

25 Years in Promoting Projective Assessment: A Silver Jubilee Tribute

          Historically, projective techniques have left an impressive, yet contentious, footprint worldwide (Groth-Marnat, 2009; Handler & Thomas, 2014; Musewicz et al., 2009; Piotrowski, 2015; Piotrowski, Keller, & Ogawa, 1993; Teglasi, 2010; Wood et al., 2011). Interestingly, survey data from recent „test use‟ studies point to a rather bleak view regarding the status of projective techniques. Ready and Veague (2014) reported that no projective tests ranked among the top 10 tests being taught in clinical psychology programs. Wright et al. (2016), in a national sample of professional psychologists, found that the Rorschach was the only projective method used frequently (ranked in top 13 tests) among a myriad of psychological assessment domains. But do these reports provide an accurate portrait regarding the extent of clinical emphasis devoted to projective techniques in both training and practice? Undoubtedly, there is a perennial need to empirically address the clinical breadth and status of specific projective methods and their place in contemporary assessment practices.

          As 2018 denotes the 25th year of continuous publication of the SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, this editorial attempts to elucidate the issue regarding the extent of current usage and emphasis on projective techniques in the mental health field. To that end, I provide data-based evidence in support of the sustainability of projective testing in contemporary professional psychology, based on data reported in very recent studies, from 2013- 2017, on a) training in psychological testing, and b) assessment practices by professionals. Moreover, to provide a complete composite on the use of projective methods, survey- based findings in the periodicals literature as well as data reported in recent dissertation research are presented.

          First, an objective appraisal regarding research interest in projective techniques seems in order. An online search of the database PsycINFO (conducted September 28, 2017), on the term „projective techniques‟, yielded 1,857 articles, 43 dissertations, and 73 book chapters since the year 2000. Based on this search, Table 1 presents the top journals, in rank order, where major research findings on projective techniques have been published. Surely this illustration does not reflect a moribund state of affairs regarding projective assessment.

           Pertinent to the debate regarding projective tests, an interesting Delphi poll study on “discredited” tests, found that Human-Figure- Drawings, H-T-P, TAT, Rorschach, and Sentence completion methods were not considered „probably discredited‟ (Norcross et al., 2006). Although some lesser-known projective instruments have fallen out-of-favor, a recent study reported that the Somatic Inkblot Series has attracted robust research attention worldwide (Piotrowski, 2017a; see Dubey et al. in this issue, for a review). Thus, while projective techniques have lost some of their luster over the decades, based on recent survey-based findings, there is still avid interest on projective approaches in mental health assessment by devoted clinicians.

           Table 2 presents 10 survey-based studies, reported over the past 5 years, on the topic of assessment practices in both professional training  and  practice  settings.  Given  the proliferation of broad-band personality tests and brief, symptom-focused scales that have been introduced in the professional literature over the past 2 decades, it is rather commendable that several projective techniques continue to rank among the top 50 most popular psychological tests. Moreover, while projective methods have indeed been de-emphasized in graduate clinical training (Piotrowski, 2015b), several projective tests continue to be embraced by clinical faculty at internship sites (see Bates, 2016; Ready et al., 2016; Stedman et al., 2017). In fact, internship directors encourage pre-internship instruction, obtained during doctoral clinical training; in projective assessment methods (see Faith, 2016). The key factor, in terms of sustainability of projective techniques, will be centered on the status of personality assessment in the professional curriculum (Evans & Finn, 2017; Piotrowski, 2017b).

Thus, based on the findings of these recent reports, Projective methods indeed have a worthwhile   place   in   the   clinical

armamentarium- Undoubtedly, not as lofty a place as in the decades past, but still cherished by a select minority of proponents who appreciate the challenge in trying to understand the complexities of how individuals perceive and deal with both internal and external reality.

So as SIS celebrates its 25th Jubilee, projective assessment is represented well in this commemorative issue on topics such as the Somatic Inkblot Series, the Rorschach, the TAT, Sentence Completion methods, and assessment training. Indeed, verbal expressive techniques (Panek et al., 2013) and idiographic assessment (Beltz et al., 2016) continue to attract both research and clinical attention. It is apparent that the projective assessment enterprise is not moribund—well exemplified by Teglasi (2013, p. 113), “Insofar as variation in projective test responses are caused by constructs‟ capturing phenomena that matter in the lives of individuals, projective techniques are legitimate tools for science and practice.”

References:

Bates, S. (2016). Internship directors‟ perspectives on psychological assessment training: Current status and emerging trends. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University.

Beltz, A.M., Wright, A., Sprague, B.N., & Molenaar, P. (2016). Bridging the nomothetic and idiographic approaches to the analysis of clinical data. Assessment, 23(4), 447-458.

Evans, F.B., & Finn, S.E. (2017). Training and consultation in psychological assessment with professional psychologists: Suggestions for enhancing the profession and individual practices. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(2), 175-185.

Faith, A. (2016).Internship directors‟ perspectives on emerging trends in psychological assessment training and practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University.

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

Handler, L., & Thomas, A.D. (Eds.) (2014). Drawings in assessment and psychotherapy: Research and applications: New York: Routledge.

Kohns, B.C. (2016). Doctoral training in psychological assessment and competency in assessment ethics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University, San Diego.

McCloskey, L.C. (2014). Construct and incremental validity of the Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank in adult psychiatric outpatients. Psychological Reports: Measures & Statistics, 114(2), 363-375.

Mihura, J.L., Roy, M., & Graceffo, R.A. (2017).Psychological assessment training in clinical psychology doctoral programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(2), 153-164.

Musewicz, J., Marczyk, G., Knauss, L., & York, D. (2009).Current assessment practice, personality measurement, and Rorschach usage by psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(5), 453-461.

Neukrug, E., Peterson, C.H., Bonner, M., & Lomas, G.I. (2013).A national survey of assessment instruments taught by counselor educators. Counselor Education & Supervision, 52, 207-219.

Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., & Garofalo, A. (2006).Discredited psychological treatments & tests: A Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(5), 515-522.

Panek, P.E., Jenkins, S.R., Hayslip, B., & Moske, A.K. (2013). Verbal expressive personality testing with older adults: 25+ years later. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(4), 366-376.

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

M.W. (2014).Assessment use by counselors in the United States. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 90-98.

Piotrowski, C. (2017a). Rorschach research through the lens of bibliometric analysis: Mapping investigatory domain. Journal of Proj. Psychol. & Mental Health, 24(1), 34-38.

Piotrowski, C. (2017b). The linchpin on the future of projective techniques. Journal of Proj. Psych.& Mental Health, 24(2), 71-73.

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

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

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

Ready, R.E., & Veague, H.B. (2014). Training in psychological assessment: Current practices of clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(4), 278-

282.

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

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

Stedman, J.M., McGeary, C.A., &Essery, J. (2017).Current patterns of training in personality assessment during internship. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 73, in press.

Teglasi, H. (2013). The scientific status of projective techniques as performance measures of personality. In D.H. Saklofske, C.R. Reynolds, &

V.L. Schwean (Eds.), Oxford handbook of child psychological assessment (pp. 113-128). New York: Oxford University Press.

Teglasi, H. (2010). Essentials of TAT and other storytelling assessments (2nded.). New York: Wiley.

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

Wood, J.M., Nezworski, M.T., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Garb,

H.N. (2011). What‟s wrong with the Rorschach: Science confronts the controversial inkblot test. New York: Wiley.

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

Chris Piotrowski, PhD

Senior Editor

University of West Florida USA Email: cpiotrowski@uwf.edu