2003/06/01 by Stephen Hibbard · 2 citations
Psychology · #Developmental psychology #Personality Disorders and Psychopathology #Projective test #Psychoanalysis #Psychological Testing and Assessment #Psychology #Psychometrics #Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications #Rorschach test #Social psychology #Test validity #Thematic apperception test
paper · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8003_05
openalex publication_date 2003/06/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
Lilienfeld, Wood, and Garb (2000) published a largely negative critique of the validity and reliability of projective methods, concentrating on the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach (Exner, 1993), 3 systems for coding the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) cards, and human figure drawings. This article is an effort to document and correct what I perceive as errors of omission and commission in the Lilienfeld et al. article. When projective measures are viewed in the light of these corrections, the evidence for the validity and clinical usefulness of the Rorschach and TAT methods is more robust than Lilienfeld et al. represented.