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

The article ‘The Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS) Psychometric Validity of Individual Variables’ specifically addresses the Rorschach Inkblot Method, in which scientific authority is the issue of numerous brisk debates. The article discusses the essence of the problem, its theoretical background, and its key psychometric characteristics. Different meta-analyses are used to prove the outcomes of the research. In fact, this article relates to my selected topic and enlarges my theoretical knowledge about the variables and the effective methods of their implementation.

The article contains the research of the effectiveness of the individual variables and indexes of the RCSM undertaken by Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.335). The scientists studied sixty-five variables, implementing Hemphill’s notes about explaining the value of the estimating effect amounts (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.335). The outcome of their work is the following: thirteen variables demonstrate the top support, seventeen of them belong to the category of good support, and ten variables show satisfactory support. In addition, twelve variables do not possess enough practical information for the evaluation. Finally, thirteen of the items demonstrate very low results. To illustrate, ten of them are extremely low, and the rest three variables have an even smaller changing assessment index (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.336).

Czopp, S.T., & Zeligman, R. The Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS) Psychometric Validity of Individual Variables

The authors of the article under consideration draw specific attention to three questions to be discussed. The first one relates to the consequences of the Rorschach CS’s specific features that evaluate the personality running. They can be implemented only in cases of assessing personality traits. The second issue is the access to the information about the restricted use of explaining the Rorschach individual variables. Taking into account that the Rorschach technique is multidimensional, the effectiveness of the variable is to be explored in comparison to the rest variables evaluating the identical personality dimension.

The third point concerns the effectiveness standards and the origin of the information. This issue is based on the fact that Rorschach’s scale evaluates personality functioning. The mentioned feature contributes to the usage of scores and indexes while demonstrating their effectiveness in comparison to external standards. Choosing studies of external standards is the key issue (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.336). Lastly, the user data can be implemented as the background for further researches and in forensic practice.

There are several instruments used to collect the data such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and Rorschach Comprehensive System variables. Hiller, Rosenthal, Bornstein, Berry, and Brunell-Neulab researched the effectiveness of the mentioned tools implementing a meta-analysis of the Rorschach Comprehensive System (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.337). The first instrument appeared to be more exact in foreseeing the results of the conduct such as the possibility of patients’ escape from psychotherapeutic treatment. On the other hand, the Multiphasic Personality Inventory is more reliable in the field of correlating the self-report scale with psychiatric deviations because of their grounding on an individual’s self-assessment.

Essentially, there are several conceptual basics of CS variables. The evaluating tools have little effect on clinical activities. To boost the validity, the tools are to be implemented in the system with external standards. Finally, the core of construct ratification depicts the order of the things and suggests the explanation of the standards and the objects under research such as narcissism and antisocial dispositions.

In the majority of cases, Rorschach variables are depicted by words related to psychological elements of the variables. Being the result of examining 3,074 hypothesized outcomes, the comparison of the standard variable and Rorschach constructs was made (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.337). Thus, the authors of the article under consideration define the key thirteen variables in the table consisted of four columns. The first column contains the names of the variables while the rest three columns give three different explanations of the variables such as a general definition, CS interpretation, and the definitions developed by Mihura and the team. To illustrate, the variable ‘food’ is defined as a “content code given to images of food” (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.337). CS interpretation of the variable is “dependency and passivity in interpersonal relationships” (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.337). Lastly, the team of researchers defines the above-mentioned variable as “dependency needs” (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.337).

Basically, the personality dimensions ratify CS variables. Being multidimensional, the Rorschach method dictates the necessity to study the suggested variables together with other variables evaluating the given dimension. This category includes “Controls and Situational Related Stress, Processing, Mediation, Ideation, Affect, Interpersonal, and Self-Perception” (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.338). The unsupported variables are represented in Table 2 in the article. Finally, the thirteen variables under consideration are matched with clusters and CS indexes (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.338).

Furthermore, external standards are used for the verification of CS variables. The system of introspectively evaluated standards comprises such items as self-report questionnaires and fully structured interviews. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, belong to externally evaluated standards. This category includes observer ratings, cognitive and objectively evaluated measures such as the age and the period of an individual’s education. Moreover, psychopathic patients are compared to non-clinical ones. The type of psychopathy is regarded in the context of the offender’s features. In turn, FD is extremely important and correlates with the aims and transformations in the field of psychotherapy. However, regarding FD as the necessary feature of psychotherapeutic practice, certain profound studies experience the shortage of the meta-analysis (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.339).

Implementing externally evaluated standards, Rorschach validity indexes are the core ones in this field. To compare, the introspective inferred methods developed indexes of the small ratification. The authors of the article focus on the shortage of correlation between various methods. They also highlight the necessity of further exploration of the integral part of validation studies implementing both evaluating techniques.

The standards of assessing the verification of the above-mentioned thirteen unsupported variables are demonstrated in Table 3. The variables are matched with the pictures of validity standards and the types of the study. For example, the illustrations of this variable include “Asperger’s, child maltreatment, parent ratings of withdrawn or depressed children” (Czopp & Zeligman, 2016, p.338). Besides, the Rorschach CS index and CS-based indexes are implemented in the calculations. Non-test variables are used as the external measure. Moreover, according to FD, the validation exploration concentrates on the issues related to psychodynamic treatment, clinician ratings, and the choice of individuals’ cures with the help of psychodynamic therapy.

In the conclusion of the article under consideration, the authors highlight that the evaluating tools play a small role in the clinical practice. To boost the effectiveness, the assessment tools are expected to be used in the system with external standards. In addition, the evaluation study is conceptually acknowledged and grounded on the psychological characteristics. In this study, the meta-analysis was conducted focusing on the statistical interferences, conceptual formulations, and the relevance of dealing with empirical information in the Rorschach studies. The article is reliable and valid because the implemented CS is constructed on the statistical background. However, there are certain ideas that the variables and the standards for their evaluation are not perfect because the variables are traditionally believed to capture.

Interestingly, the authors plan the further research that would focus on the contrasting healthy personality with the one suffering from mental disorders. The deviant data are to be evaluated and compared with nonpatient aged patterns globally. Additionally, the outcomes of the research under consideration may be used both in clinical and forensic practices.

In essence, I have several comments related to the analyzed article. Regardless of the fact that the language of the article is rather difficult, the information is well-structured and clearly presented in three tables. The authors used about eighty references selected from the latest journals and books in the field, which boosts the reliability and the effectiveness of the research.