CSF 5-HIAA and the rorschach test in patients who have attempted suicide

Can the Rorschach be Administered Remotely? A Review of Options and a Pilot Study Using a Newly Developed R-PAS App

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has required psychologists to adopt measures like physical distancing and mask wearing, though other safety procedures such as travel restrictions or prohibitions on in-person practice and research have fostered the use of tele-health tools. In this article, we review options for using the Rorschach task via videoconference and provide preliminary data from using a new electronic app for remote R-PAS administration to determine whether the remote administration in an electronic form yields different information than in-person administration with the cards in hand. As a pilot study, our focus is on the "first factor" of all Rorschach scores, i.e., complexity. Data were collected from 60 adult Italian community volunteers, and statistical analyses evaluated the extent to which the average complexity score significantly departed from R-PAS normative expectations (SS = 100), accompanied by Bayesian likelihoods for supporting the null hypothesis. Results suggest that the general level of complexity shown by the test-takers when administered the Rorschach remotely with the new R-PAS app closely resembles that previously observed using "standard" in-person procedures. Tentative analyses of other R-PAS scores suggested normative departures that could be due to the effects of the app, testing at home, or responses to the pandemic. We offer recommendations for future research and discuss practical implications.

The Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS) Psychometric Validity of Individual Variables

Since the publication of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (Rorschach, 1921/1942 ), theorists, researchers, and practitioners have been debating the nature of the task, its conceptual foundation, and most important its psychometric properties. The validity of the Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 1974 , 2003; Exner & Weiner, 1995 ) has been supported by several meta-analyses that used different types of nontest external criterion for validating individual variables. In a recent meta-analysis, Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel ( 2013 ) found coefficients ranging from modest to excellent for most of the selected CS variables, with 13 of them reported as showing "little to no support." This article focuses on these variables. Although endorsing Mihura et al.'s mainly validating findings, we also suggest that the evidence presented for the little or no validity of these 13 variables is not quite compelling enough to warrant changing their definition or coding, or removing them from the system. We point to some issues concerning the description and interpretation of these variables and the appropriateness of the external criteria used for exploring their validity, and suggest considering these issues in further CS research. Implications of Mihura et al.'s meta-analysis for clinical and forensic practice are discussed.