CHAPTER 6

Administration, Scoring and Interpretation of Holtzman Inkblot Test:

Administration and Scoring of Holtzman Inkblot test:

Administration:

The Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT) was developed originally to bridge the gap between the intuitively oriented clinician and the scientific determinism of the academician. In order to achieve a higher degree of psychometric reliability and validity, the HIT is more demanding of the clinician than the Rorschach. The accrual of scientific evidence for clinical application is a slow process with which many practitioners are impatient. Since there are nine times as many inkblots in the combined forms of the HIT as there are in the Rorschach, the basic testing materials are significantly more costly. But the time and effort on the part of the clinician in administering, scoring, and interpreting the HIT need not be any greater than for the Rorschach, once a clinician has mastered the technique. Those who have learned the method well have been enthusiastic about its value for both clinical and research purposes. Many clinicians find the HIT difficult or cumbersome because of 45 inkblots instead of 10, or because of only one response per card rather than as many as the subject wishes to give. Yet these are the very features that produce superior psychometric qualities, rendering the technique more suitable for rigorous scientific validity as well as for processing with modern computer technology (Holtzman, 1986).

Standard procedures have been developed for administration of the HIT. “The standard instructions differ from those for the Rorschach inkblots in several ways. First, the examiner instructs the subject to give only one response to each card. Second, the brief inquiry is given immediately after each response. And third, the permissible question by the examiner during inquiry is limited in scope and is asked rather regularly to avoid inadvertent verbal conditioning of certain determinants or content” (Holtzman, 1986). A Record Form and a Summary Sheet is provided to the examiner for recording the responses and scoring. The Record Form also provides space for personal identification data of the subject. A schematic diagram of location is provided to show the location of the responses. Scores for the 22 variables are recorded on the Summary Sheet.

After establishing rapport, the examiner sits next to the subject where the location of the responses and he can see the location of the responses and subject’s elaboration may be documented. The stack of 47 inkblots is placed in front of the examiner, face down in serial order with the first trial blot (X) on top. The examiner picks up the cards one at a time, handing each one in upright position to the subject. The instructions given to the subject should include the following points: “(a) these inkblots were not made to look like anything in particular; (b) different people see different things in each inkblot; and (c) only one response for each card is desired” (Holtzman,1956). However the verbatim instructions are as follows:

“I have here a set of inkblots which were made by dropping ink on paper and folding it. I'd like you to look at each inkblot and tell me what it might look like, what it might represent, or what it could be. Since these are only inkblots, there are no right or wrong answers and each blot looks like different things to different people. It's possible for a person to see several things in each inkblot, but I want you to give me only one response for each card. After you see something and tell me about it, I'll ask you some questions, because I want to see it in the same way you do. I'll be writing down what you say and making note of the time, but you may take as long as you wish on each card. Do you have any questions?” (Holtzman, 1956).

The Instructions is very simple and differ from the instructions of the Rorschach in the following ways: “(1) The examiner instructs the examinee to give only one response per card; (2) a brief inquiry is given immediately after each response; (3) permissible questions by the examiner during inquiry are limited both in number and in scope and are asked rather routinely to avoid inadvertent verbal conditioning of certain determinants or content. Three kinds of questions are permissible as part of the brief inquiry in the standard administration. The actual wording used can vary a great deal, so that the inquiry becomes a natural part of the conversation between examiner and subject (Holtzman, 1986). Typical phrasing would be as follows:

"Where in the blot do you see "Is there anything else you care a ------------?"

To tell me about it? “

"What is there about the blot that Makes it look like a ------?"

In case of school children and young normal adults, administer the HIT twice using the alternate forms for the second administration. The time between test and retest sessions varied from 1 week to 1 year for the different samples, permitting rather broad generalizations about the equivalences of the two forms and the stability of inkblot scores over a period of time.

The subject's reaction time for each actual response is recorded in seconds. The examiner may score certain variables concurrently with administration without any interruption to the subject. The Form Appropriateness is easier to score at the time the response is given. Replying the quarry of the subject such as "Can I turn the card?" or "Should I use the whole inkblot?" the examiner should always answer with a noncommittal remark such as, "That's entirely up to you." Immediately after each response, a brier inquiry is made by the examiner to check on certain aspects of the response and to obtain additional information helpful in scoring the Location, Determinants and if there is anything else. When a subject rejects an inkblot, claiming that he can see nothing in it, will be considered as “Rejection”. The examiner should make effort to keep the number of rejections at a minimum by giving the subject plenty of time and encouragement such as "Does it now suggest anything to you?" etc. (Holtzman, 1986).

Scoring of the HIT:

Holtzman developed 22 quantitative variables to cover nearly all important scoring categories and dimensions commonly employed with the Rorschach test. “The 22 variables finally adopted can be divided into several categories along traditional lines. Location and space deal with the particular parts of the inkblot used by the person in organizing his response and figure ground relations of these parts. Form definiteness, Form Appropriateness, Color, Shading and Movement constitute those variables often referred to as determinant of the response. The form, color and texture off the inkblot are the major stimulus characteristics that play a determining role in the formulation of the concept. Five variables are used for the classification and scoring of the more important kind of content Human, Animal, Anatomy, Sex and Abstract. The quality of the response content is captured in part by such scores as Anxiety, Hostility, Barrier, Penetration and Pathognomic verbalization. Five additional scores –Integration, Balance, Popular, Reaction Time and rejection complete the set of 22 variables” (Holtzman, 1956). The examiner scores each variable in turn for each response except for the practice inkblots, X and Y. A summary sheet is used for recording the score on each variable. For detailed information about scoring please consult Holtzman Manual. The 22 variables are

as follows:

Table 1

Scoring Variables, Abbreviation and Theoretical Score Range

Reaction Time|RT|----|

Rejection|R|45|

Location|L|90|

Space|S|45|

Form Definiteness|FD|180|

Form Appropriateness|FA|90|

Color|C|135|

Shading|Sh|90|

Movement|M|180|

Pathognomic Verbalization|V|180|

Integration|I|45|

Human|H|90|

Animal|A|90|

Anatomy|At|90|

Sex|Sx|90|

Abstract|Ab|90|

Anxiety|Ax|90|

Hostility|Hs|135|

Barrier|Br|45|

Penetration|Pn|45|

Balance|B|45|

Popular|P|25|

It is advisable to attach the completed summary sheet with the record form to keep together all the information about the subject.

Reaction time is recorded in seconds- the time from the presentation of the inkblot to the primary response. If the subject rejects the inkblot, the time at which the card is rejected should be recorded as reaction time. The average RT is obtained by summing the scores for the 45 inkblots and dividing the total by 45.

Responses such as “just look like an inkblot to me” or “I can’t make it out,” are counted as rejection.

The following 3-point system is used for scoring Location:

0 – Use of the whole blot or at least all except minor portion of the blot (cut-off whole).

1 – Use of large area of the blot, such as one entire side or the entire center of the blot.

2 – Use of smaller areas of the blot.

The total scores for location is obtained by summing the individuals scoring weights across the 45 cards. The scores can theoretically vary from 0 - 90.

4. Space (S):

Space is scored when there is true figure background reversal, e.g., when the whit part of the card is used as the figure in the percept with the inkblot serving as background to delineate the form of the white area.

Such a variable is entirely a concept centered, though some blots are more likely than others to evoke form - definite concepts. The importance of Form Definiteness is obvious when considered concurrently with Form Appropriateness, the goodness of the fit of the concept to the form of the inkblot.

It deals with the goodness of fit of the form of the concept to the form of the inkblot.

7. Color (C):

The scoring of the color is based upon the importance of color, including black, grey or white, as a response determinant. In general giving credit for color is reserved for responses where it is explicitly mentioned by the subject.

The scoring of shading is based solely upon the primacy of the shading as determinant. The shading is scored when qualitative differences are made between which the shading of the blot is used, such as distinction between surface, texture, vista and depth. All instances of shading as a determinant have been pooled in to one score.

Credit for movement is given only when the subject voluntarily ascribes movement or potential for movement to the percept. Examiner should not make direct enquiry to elicit movement.

Autistic thinking is usually reflected in the subject’s description of the response or explanation of why he saw such percept. An important consideration in assessing the degree of pathology is the extent to which the subject lacks insight in to the deviant character of his response.

It can be scored when two or more adequately perceived blots are organized into a larger whole response. Three other variables must be taken in to account in scoring integration.

Functional Integration:

The functional integration is based upon an interaction between two or more conceptually independent units.

Collective Integration:

It is scored when an overall grouping is actively imposed on the blots. The essential feature is evidence of conceptualizing, classifying process as distinct from one of sheer enumeration.

Positional Integration:

It is scored when there is a spatial relationship between the elements perceived such as “two native are dancing around bonfire”.

Structural Integration:

It is scored when a single content is arrived at by unifying two or more colored areas including white space. .

12. Human:

13. Animal:

14. Anatomy:

15. Sex:

16. Abstract:

Emotions or attitudes expressed or implied which reveal the feelings of fear, unpleasantness, sorrow and pity are scored as Anxiety.

The scoring is based on symbolic, implicit or explicit signs of hostility shown in the response.

The concept of Barrier refers to any protective covering, membrane, shell or skin related to the perception of body image boundaries. A score of 1 is given to each response where Barrier is present and score of 0 when Barrier is absent.

Any concept which might be symbolic of an individual’s feeling that his body exterior is of little protective value and can be easily penetrated is likely to be scored 1 on Penetration.

21. Balance (B): One of the blots used in Holtzman test were deliberately selected because of their asymmetry or lack of perceptual balance. Balance (B) is scored either present 1 or absent 0 on each response.

Popular responses in Holtzman Inkblot Test are more common than that of Klopfer or Beck’s system. It occur at least one out of seven protocols. These are about 25.

There are other variables which can be scored for most inkblot protocols and the space has been provided on the summary sheet for inclusion of additional scores. Though the adoption of only 22 scoring variables make the test more simple and less complicated.

The Scoring Weights for 22 HIT variables as described by Holtzman (1986) is given below:

Reaction Time (RT): The time in seconds from the presentation of the inkblot to the beginning of the primary response.

Rejection (R): Score 1 when subject returns inkblot to examiner without giving a scorable response; otherwise, score 0.

Location (L): Tendency to break down blot into smaller fragments. Score 0 for use of the whole blot, 1 for large area, and 2 for smaller area.

Space (S): Score 1 for true figure-ground reversals; otherwise, score 0.

Form Definiteness (FD): The definiteness of the form of the concept reported, regardless of the goodness of fit to the inkblot. A 5-point scale with 0 for very vague and 4 for highly specific.

From Appropriateness (FA): The goodness of fit of the form of the percept to the form of the inkblot. Score 0 for poor, 1 for fair, and 2 for good.

Color (C): The apparent primacy of color (including black, gray, or white) as a response determinant. Score 0 for no use of color, 1 for use secondary to form (like Rorschach FC), 2 when used as primary determinant but some form present (like CF), and 3 when used as primary determinant with no form present (like C).

Shading (Sh): The apparent primacy of shading as response determinant (texture, depth, or vista). Score 0 for no use of shading, 1 when used in secondary manner, and 2 when used as primary determinant with little or no form present.

Movement (M): The energy level of movement or potential movement ascribed to the percept, regardless of content. Score 0 for none, 1 for static potential, 2 for casual, 3 for dynamic, and 4 for violent movement.

Pathognomic Verbalization (V): Degree of autistic, bizarre thinking evident in the response, as rated on a 5-point scale. Score 0 where no pathology is present. The nine categories of V and the range of scoring weights for each are as follows: Fabulation, 1; Fabulized Combination, 2,3,4; Queer Response, 1,2,3; Incoherence, 4; Autistic Logic, 1,2,3,4; Contamination.2,3,4;Self-reference, 2,3,4; Detereoration Color, 2,3,4; Absurd Response, 3.

Anatomy (At): Degree of "gut like" quality in the content. Score 0 for none; 1 for bones, x-rays, or medical drawings; and 2 for visceral and crude anatomy.

Sex (Sx): Degree of sexual quality in the content. Score 0 for no sexual reference, 1 for socially accepted sexual activity or expressions (buttocks, bust, kissing), and 2 for blatant sexual content (penis, vagina).

Abstract (Ab): Degree of abstract quality in the content. Score 0 for none, 1 for abstract elements along with other elements having form, and 2 for purely abstract content ("bright colors remind me of gaiety").

Anxiety (Ax): Signs of anxiety in the fantasy content, as indicated by emotions and attitudes, expressive behavior, symbolism, or cultural stereotypes of fear. Score 0 for none, 1 for questionable or indirect signs, and 2 for overt or clear-cut evidence.

Hostility (Hs): Signs of hostility in the fantasy content. Scored on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 for none to 3 for direct, violent, interpersonal destruction.

Barrier (Br): Score 1 for reference to any protective covering, membrane, shell, or skin that might be symbolically related to the perception of body-image boundaries; otherwise, score 0.

Penetration (Pn): Score 1 for concept that might be symbolic of an individual's feeling that his body exterior is of little protective value and can be easily penetrated; otherwise, score 0.

Balance (B): Score 1 where there is overt concern for the symmetry-asymmetry feature of the inkblot; otherwise, score 0.

Popular (P): Each form contains 25 inkblots in which one or more popular percepts occur. "Popular" in this standardization studies means that a percept has to occur at least 14 percent of the time among normal subjects. Score 1 for popular core concepts (or their precision alternatives) as listed in the scoring manual; otherwise, score 0.

Integration (I): Score 1 for the organization of two or more adequately perceived blot elements into a larger whole; otherwise, scores 0.

Human (H): Degree of human quality in the content of response. Score 0 for none; 1 for parts of humans, distortions, or cartoons; and 2 for whole human beings or elaborated human faces.

Animal (A): Degree of animal quality in the content. Score 0 for none (including animal objects and microscopic life); 1 for animal parts, bugs, or insects; and 2 for whole animals.

Extensive reviews on HIT (Holtzman, 1981, Holtzman and Swartz, 1983, Swartz et al, 1983) have proved the reliability, validity and use of the test in different situations. The Factor analysis of inter correlations among the 22 HIT variables have indicated that these scores tend to cluster into the following three meaningful factors:

Factor 1. Perceptual Maturity and Integrated Ideational Activity: Movement, Integration, Human, and Barrier:

High scores on these four variables taken together are indicative of well-organized ideational activity, good imaginative capacity, and well-differentiated ego boundaries. All four variable increase with age among children and are significantly higher among college graduates than average adults, indicating a strong component of cognitive ability and creativity (Swartz, Reinehr & Holtzman, 1983b). Studies have shown repeatedly that these variables are indicative of creative potential. They show significant relationships with reading comprehension among children, even after general intelligence has been held constant (Laird, Laosa, & Swartz 1973).

The energy level of movement ascribed to the percept, regardless of content, has some other interesting correlates. A high score on Movement is associated with perceived empathy in counselors, while low Movement is associated with the reverse (Mueller & Abeles, 1964). The degree of eye contact and smiling among psychiatric patients when interviewed is also related to high Movement scores (Lefcourt, Telegdi, Willows, & Buck-span, 1972). Movement is correlated with the discharge or inhibition of cognitive energy, according to Covan (1976). Increased perception of Movement in inkblots follows experimental inhibition of cognitive responses, while discharge of cognitive processes in a series of free-association tasks leads to a sharp decrease in reported perception of movement in inkblots. (Holtzman, 1986).

Dream deprivation, whether induced by drugs (Lerner, 1966) or prevented by interrupting rapid-eye movements (Feldstein, 1973), results in higher Movement scores. These findings support Rorschach's views on the fundamental similarity between movement and dreams due to the centrality of kinesthetic experience in both, an outcome that is also consistent with Heinz Werner's (1957) sensory tonic theory of perception.

Movement has a particularly strong cognitive component among young children. In the first year of testing for six-year-olds in the longitudinal study, the complete battery of tests for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) was given. Factor analyses of inter-correlations among the various cognitive tests were done, with Movement included as an extra variable. Among the American children, Movement was clearly a major part of the first factor defined by the Verbal subtests from the WISC. Movement did not show up heavily loaded on a similar factor for the Mexicans until the nine-year-olds were analyzed. Similar results were found be made for the American nine-and twelve-year-olds, since they had not been given the complete WISC test battery. Movement deals with that component of verbal ability characterized by a lively, active imagination and the ability to project outward from one's fantasies. In this sense, it deals particularly with the expressive, imaginative aspects of verbal ability rather than with factual information, word meanings, and analytic problem solving (Holtzman, 1986).

Human content also has some special meaning worthy of note. As one would expect from projective theory, a high score on Human suggests high social interest, while lack of any Human content indicates the opposite (Fernald & Linden, 1966).

One of the most interesting of the symbolic content scores is Barrier developed by Fisher & Cleveland (1958). The score is given for references to any protective covering, membrane, shell, or skin that might be symbolically related to the perception of body-image boundaries. High Barrier is indicative of strong ego identity, while low Barrier suggests diffusion. High Barrier is related to being influential and independent in group processes (Cleveland & Morton, 1962), adjusting well to physical disablement (Fisher, 1963), being able to tolerate pain (Nichols & Tursky 1967) and having a positive evaluation of one's own body (Conquest, 1963). These findings are consistent with others showing that low Barrier is related to juvenile delinquency (Megargee, 1965).

Factor 2. Perceptual Sensitivity: Color, Shading, and Form Definiteness (reversed):

The clustering together of Color and Shading with Form Definiteness (reversed) is inevitable. As with scoring systems for the Rorschach, the greater the predominance of color or shading over form in a response, the higher the score. Among young children, significant negative loadings on this factor also appear for Animal, suggesting that many children tend to use color and shading as a determinant only when they cannot find a familiar animal form. The positive pole on this factor indicates over reactivity to the stimulus determinants, while the negative pole shows primary concern for form alone as a response determinant (Holtzman, 1986).

Among normal subjects, a high Color score has been found related to impulsivity (Holtzman, 1950) and to increased expression of affect (Mayfield, 1968). In her clinical use of the HIT, Hill (1972) recommends paying attention to the quality of the Color responses- particularly those given to inkblots having a high stimulus strength for Color – in making interpretations about the lability of affect (Holtzman, 1986).

There is little experimental evidence bearing upon the validity of Shading or Form Definiteness, the other two variables that measure degree of perceptual sensitivity. Nor is there much information from correlational studies with other personality measures that would indicate the independent meaning of these variables for assessment purposes. To be sure, there is a consensus among Rorschach clinicians concerning the use of these scores for personality assessment, but the scientific evidence is too tenuous at this time to justify any confident interpretations, particularly among children (Holtzman, 1986).

Factor 3. Psychopathology of Thought: Pathognomic Verbalization, Anxiety and Hostility:

Pathognomic Verbalizations is the best single indicator of psychopathology. Among adolescents and adults, the bizarre perception and autistic logic underlying high scores on this variable are characteristic either of schizophrenia or extreme artistic license in responding to inkblots. Highly creative, successful artists do tend to get much higher scores than average individuals on Pathognomic Verbalization (Holtzman, Swartz & Thorpe, 1971), but the quality of the response is noticeably different. Normal individuals tend to give fabulations with notable affectivity, mildly fabulized combinations of otherwise acceptable percepts, or even occasional queer responses that often are described in a playful manner. Schizophrenics, on the other hand, manifest a loss of distance between themselves and the inkblots, often giving severely fabulized combinations, contaminations, queer responses, or special kinds of autistic logic that show faulty, fantastic reasoning as a justification for the response. Embellishing a response with highly personal meaning by self-reference is particularly characteristic of psychotic thinking when manifest repeatedly (Swartz, 1970). A predominance of absurd responses is characteristic of mentally retarded individuals, while a predominance of deteriorated color associations is indicative of severe disintegration (Holtzman, 1986).

Among young children, moderately high scores on Pathognomic Verbalization simply may indicate immature thought processes coupled with uncontrolled fantasies and loose imagination, rather than serious psychopathology.

Sings of anxiety or hostility in the fantasy content form the basis for the Anxiety of Hostility score. Moderate-level scores on both of these symbolic content scales are normal particularly in young children, but very high scores should be interpreted as having likely clinical significance. Zero or low positive correlations can be expected between each of these two variables and anxiety or hostility scales based upon self-report inventories. The most important evidence of their validity comes from experimental studies. Subjects who rapidly acquire the conditioned eyelid response have higher Anxiety scores than those who do not condition easily (Herron, 1965). Individuals with high Anxiety are less tolerant of pain (Nichols & Tursky, 1967). Individual who show a marked increase in Hostility scores after experiencing frustrating situations are those who also show a predisposition to hostility as measured by factor 1 of the Buss-Durkee Inventory (Rosenstiel, 1973). Both Anxiety and Hostility scores are directly related to the observed interpersonal distance characteristic of an individual in an experimental settings; the higher the inkblot scores, the greater the distance (Greenberg, Aronow & Rauchway, 1977).These findings are all consistent with the theoretical conception of these symbolic content scores. While the meaning of Anxiety and Hostility scores may be complex, it is clear that very high scores, even among children, have sufficient validity to justify clinical interpretation (Holtzman, 1986).

Nosological and Normative Studies with the HIT:

Closely related to the clinical validity of individual variables within the HIT is the use of patterns of scores for differential diagnosis. The original standardization data on 15 different populations are presented in percentile norms for eight major reference groups ranging from five-year-olds to superior adults and including psychiatric patients as well as mental retardates. Chronic schizophrenics differ from normal reference groups on almost all HIT variable. Even without Pathognomic Verbalization, Moseley (1963) was able to develop an objective approach based upon linear combinations of 16 HIT scores that classified accurately 82 percent of the normal from schizophrenics, 71 percent of the normal from depressed patients, and 78 percent of the depressives from schizophrenics. Adding Pathognomic Verbalization in a two-stage model for use with doubtful cases, the efficiency of this objective approach to differential diagnosis was improved even more. More importantly, when cross-validated, the procedure held up completely. Others have had similar success in differentiating schizophrenics, neurotics, normal, or organics by various combinations of HIT scores (Barnes, 1964; Hill, 1972; Shukla, 1976) (Holtzman, 1986).

Conners (1965) reported a number of highly significant differences between emotionally disturbed children seen in an outpatient clinic and normal controls of the same age and background. In Connors' study, disturbed children got higher scores on Rejection and Anatomy and lower scores on all other variables except Pathognomic Verbalization style (Holtzman, 1986).

Brief Interpretation of Holtzman indices:

Movement, Integration, Human, and Barrier repeatedly define a factor indicative of well-organized ideational activity, good imaginative capacity, and well-differentiated ego boundaries. Each of the four variables has other correlates from independent studies that make them interesting in their own right. For example, dream deprivation results in higher Movement scores (Feldstein, 1973), and Movement is correlated with the discharge or inhibition of cognitive energy (Covan, 1976).

Pathognomic Verbalization has been shown to be the best single indicator of psychopathology. The bizarre perception and autistic logic underlying high scores on this variable are characteristic either of schizophrenia or extreme artistic license in responding to inkblots. Normal individuals tend to give fabulations with notable affectivity, mildly fabulized combinations of otherwise described in a playful manner. Schizophrenics, on the other hand, manifest a fabulized combinations, contaminations, queer responses, or special kinds of autistic logic that show faulty, fantastic reasoning as a justification for the response.

Sings of Anxiety or Hostility in the fantasy content forms the basis for the Anxiety or Hostility score. Moderate-level scores on both of these symbolic content scales are normal, particularly in young children, but very high scores should be interpreted as having likely clinical significance. The most important evidence of their validity comes from experimental studies. Individuals with high Anxiety are less tolerant of pain (Nichols & Tursky, 1967) and more rapidly acquire the conditioned eyelid response (Herron, 1965). Individuals who show a marked increase in Hostility score after a frustrating situation are those who also have a predisposition to hostility.

A high Color score has been found to be related to impulsivity and is predictive of poor performance under stressful field conditions (Holtzman, Santos, Bouquet, & Barth, 1966). In her clinical use of the HIT, Hill (1972) recommended paying attention to the quality of the Color responses, particularly those given to inkblots having high stimulus strength for Color, in making interpretations about the lability of affect.

Three scores - Sex, Anatomy, and Penetration - deal with bodily preoccupation. Blatant sex responses are relatively rare but significant when they do appear. High Anatomy scores have been found closely associated with high degree of somatic preoccupation among hospitalized patients (Endicott & Jortner, 1967). Penetration and Barrier are the two body image scores developed by Fisher & Cleveland (1958).

Location, Form Definiteness, and Form Appropriateness is interesting to consider together because of the dynamic tension that is created within an individual who is confronted with the task of organizing various percepts into a single response. The high-achievement oriented perceptual style characteristic of many Americans is to use the entire inkblot with percepts that are fairly Form Definite and Form Appropriate. Such a combination is difficult on many of the HIT inkblots, forcing some individuals to compromise by using smaller detail, reporting vaguer percepts, or ignoring the goodness of fit of the percept to the form of the inkblot.

We can safely conclude that Wayne Holtzman developed the HIT technique to bridge a gap between the intuitively oriented clinician and the scientific determinism of the academician. The HIT has higher degree of psychometric reliability and validity than the Rorschach test. Since it has more stimulus (inkblot cards) chances of manipulation becomes negligible. Although a few criticize about having too many cards to administer, but after experience using this technique, many have found that it takes less time than many questionnaires. A few clinicians have also criticized the procedure on getting “only one response per card”. While this restricts the projective value of the test, overall this is considered to be “positive trade off”, since this approach increases the procedure’s psychometric value. All in all when compare to the Rorschach, It has proven to be a more valuable research tool and diagnostic instrument.