Rorschach validity: An empirical approach to the literature

Abstract

Weiner (1977) argued that the widespread impression of Rorschach failure is based on ill-founded research. Much of the work is purely “empirical” in nature, insofar as treatment samples are compared across randomly selected Rorschach measures. “Conceptual” studies, by contrast, offer some rationale as to why the measures in question are relevant to the differentiation attempted. This investigation compares two types of empirical study with the two types of conceptual research. Based on results, it is argued that the Rorschach does indeed have some validity and that poor research is at least partly culpable for the Rorschach's perceived failure.