Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Projective Tests

  • Edward E. HunterEmail author
  • Savannah J. Geske
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_2006

Description

Projective tests take a variety of formats yet consistently provide the individual an opportunity for free-response self-expression. The main purpose of projective testing is to assess personality functioning. Each projective test includes some type of unstructured stimulus materials, such as inkblots, pictures of people in social situations, or a blank piece of paper. The examinee is asked to provide some form of open-ended response, such as making up a story or drawing a picture, depending on requirements of the particular task. As such, there is a nearly unlimited range of possible responses the individual might make to the materials. These responses form the basis for the clinician’s interpretation of the examinee’s personality.

The Rorschach Inkblot Technique, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and projective drawing tasks are the most commonly administered projective techniques (Camara et al. 2000). The Rorschach (1942) consists of 10 vertically symmetrical blots...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References and Readings

  1. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Aronow, E., & Resnikoff, M. (1976). Rorschach content interpretation. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  3. Bellak, L., & Abrams, D. M. (1997). The T.A.T., the C.A.T., and the S.A.T. In Clinical use (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Buck, J. N. (1948). The H-T-P test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, R. C., & Kaufman, S. H. (1972). Actions, styles and symbols in kinetic family drawings (K-F-D): An interpretive manual. New York: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory-2. San Antonio: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
  7. Camara, W. J., Nathan, J. S., & Puente, A. E. (2000). Psychological test usage: Implications in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Exner, J. E. (1986). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Exner, J. E., Weiner, I. B., & Staff, P. A. R. (2008). Rorschach interpretation assistance program: Version 5. Lutz: PAR, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Frank, L. K. (1939). Projective methods for the study of personality. Journal of Psychology, 8, 343–389.Google Scholar
  11. Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. Hoboken: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Hammer, E. F. (1997). Advances in projective drawing interpretation. Springfield: Charles Thomas.Google Scholar
  13. Hibbard, S. (2003). A critique of Lilienfeld et al.’s (2000) “The scientific status of projective techniques”. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(3), 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lezak, M. D., Howieson, D. B., Bigler, E. D., & Tranel, D. (2012). Test of personal adjustment and emotional functioning. In neuropsychological assessment (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 27–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Machover, K. (1948). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure: A method of personality investigation (Eleventh Printing-1980). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  17. Meyer, G. J., & Eblin, J. J. (2012). An overview of the Rorschach performance assessment system (R-PAS). Psychological Injury and Law, 5, 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meyer, G. J., Viglione, D. J., Mihura, J. L., Erard, R. E., & Erdberg, P. (2011). A manual for the Rorschach performance assessment system. Toledo: R–PAS.Google Scholar
  19. Millon, T., Davis, R., Millon, C., & Grossman, S. (2009). The Millon clinical multiaxial inventory (MCMP-III) (3rd ed.). San Antonio: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
  20. Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality (70th anniversary Ed.-2008). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rabin, L. A., Barr, W. B., & Burton, L. A. (2005). Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada: A survey of INS, NAN and APA division 40 members. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rorschach, H. (1942). Psychodiagnostics: A diagnostic test based on perception (10th ed.-1998). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe Publishing Corp (Originally published in German in 1921).Google Scholar
  23. Sundberg, N. D. (1961). The practice of psychological testing in clinical services in the United States. American Psychologist, 16, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sweet, J. J., Moberg, P. J., & Suchy, Y. (2000). Ten-year follow-up survey of clinical neuropsychologists: Part I. Practices and beliefs. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14(1), 18–37.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Viglione, D. J., Blume-Marcovici, A. C., Miller, H. L., Giromini, L., & Meyer, G. (2012). An inter-rater reliability study for the Rorschach performance assessment system. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(6), 607–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA