Projective test: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:07, 4 July 2023

Latest revision as of 20:31, 19 June 2025

(14 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Type of personality test}}

{{cleanup|reason=Many sections are incomplete.|date=November 2013}}

Line 21 ⟶ 22:

*Does not depend as much on verbal abilities

*Taps both conscious and unconscious traits

*Focus is clinical perspective - not normative - but has developed norms over the years <ref name="neiu">Projective Methods for Personality Assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2012, from http://www.neiu.edu/~mecondon/proj-lec.htm.</ref>

==Common variants==

Line 32 ⟶ 33:

===Holtzman Inkblot Test===

{{Main|Holtzman Inkblot Test}}

This is a variation of the Rorschach test, but uses a much larger pool of different images. Its main differences lie in its objective scoring criteria as well as limiting subjects to one response per inkblot (to avoid variable response productivity). Different variables such as reaction time are scored for an individual's response upon seeing an inkblot.<ref>Gamble, K. R. (1972). The holtzman inkblot technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77(3), 172-194172–194. {{doi|10.1037/h0032332}}</ref>

===Thematic apperception test===

{{Main|Thematic Apperception Test}}

Another popular projective test is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) in which an individual views ambiguous scenes of people, and is asked to describe various aspects of the scene; for example, the subject may be asked to describe what led up to this scene, the emotions of the characters, and what might happen afterwards. A clinician will evaluate these descriptions, attempting to discover the conflicts, motivations and attitudes of the respondent. A researcher may use a specific scoring system that establishes consistent criteria of expressed thoughts and described behaviors associated with a specific trait, e.g., the need for Achievement, which has a validated and reliable scoring system. In the answers, the respondent "projects" their unconscious attitudes and motivations into the picture, which is why these are referred to as "projective tests." Although the TAT is a commonly used psychological assessment instrument, its validity as a personality assessementassessment test has been questioned. In contrast, it has high reliability and validity when used in research with larger samples.<ref name=SoleySmith2008>Soley, L.C and Smith, A. L. (2008). Projective Techniques for Social Science and Business Research, Milwaukee: Southshore Press.</ref>

===Draw-A-Person test===

Line 44 ⟶ 45:

===Animal Metaphor Test===

{{Main|Animal Metaphor Test}}

The Animal Metaphor test consists of a series of creative and analytical prompts in which the person filling out the test is asked to create a story and then interpret its personal significance. Unlike conventional projective tests, the Animal Metaphor Test works as both a diagnostic and therapeutic battery. Unlike the [[Rorschach test]] and TAT, the Animal Metaphor is premised on self-analysis via self-report questions. The test combines facets of art therapy, [[cognitive behavioral therapy]], and insight therapy, while also providing a theoretical platform of behavioral analysis. The test has been used widely as a clinical tool, as an educational assessment, and in human resource selection{{citation needed|date=July 2022}}. The test is accompanied by an inventory, The Relational Modality Evaluation Scale, a self-report measure that targets individuals' particular ways of resolving conflict and ways of dealing with relational stress. These tests were developed by Dr. [[Albert J Levis]] at the Center for the Study of Normative Behavior in Hamden, CT, a clinical training and research center.

===Sentence completion test===

Line 53 ⟶ 54:

{{Main|Picture Arrangement Test}}

Created by Silvan Tomkins, this psychological test consists of 25 sets of 3 pictures which the subject must arrange into a sequence that they "feel makes the best sense". The reliability of this test has been disputed, however. For example, patients with schizophrenia have been found to score as more "normal" than patients with no such mental disorders.<ref>Piotrowski, Z. (1958-01-01). The Tomkins-Horn Picture Arrangement Test. The journal of nervous and mental disease, 126(1), 106. {{doi|10.1097/00005053-195801000-00016}}</ref>

Other picture tests include:

* Thompson version

* CAT (animals) and CAT-H (humans)

Line 71 ⟶ 72:

===Graphology===

{{Main|Graphology}}

Graphology is the [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]]<ref name='Graph_Beyer_PBS'>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/3282_bbeyerstein.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010219121809/http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/3282_bbeyerstein.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 19, 2001 |title=Barry Beyerstein Q&A |access-date=2008-02-22 |work=Ask the Scientists |publisher=Scientific American Frontiers }} "they simply interpret the way we form these various features on the page in much the same way ancient oracles interpreted the entrails of oxen or smoke in the air. i.e., it's a kind of magical divination or fortune telling where 'like begets like'".</ref> analysis of the physical characteristics and patterns of [[handwriting]] purporting to be able to identify the writer, indicating psychological state at the time of writing, or evaluating personality characteristics.<ref name="definition">{{citation | title=Longman Dictionary of Psychology and Psychiatry | publisher=Longman Group United Kingdom | year=1983 }}</ref>

Graphology has been controversial for more than a century. Although supporters point to the [[anecdotal evidence]] of positive testimonials as a reason to use it for personality evaluation, most empirical studies fail to show the validity claimed by its supporters.<ref>{{Citation

Line 104 ⟶ 105:

</ref>

The Teste Palográfico (Palographic Test) is a personality test used frequently in Brazil.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.crpsp.org/uploads/impresso/782/WiElmGgKaBYXPT1JBwaVSZgwlIorYSj7.pdf|title=CONVERSANDO COM O PSICÓLOGO - Detran esclarece sobre avaliação psicológica para obtenção de cnh [TALKING TO THE PSYCHOLOGIST - Traffic Department explains about psychological assessment to obtain a driver's license]|first1=Denise|last1=Farah|date=September 30, 2009|journal=JORNAL psi|volume=162|pages=10–11|via=crpsp.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1677-04712020000400007&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt|title=Palographic test: Challenges for training in psychological evaluation|first1=Eduarda Lehmann|last1=Bannach|first2=Alessandra Sant'Anna|last2=Bianchi|date=July 18, 2020|journal=Avaliação Psicológica|volume=19|issue=4|pages=400–408|via=pepsic.bvsalud.org|doi=10.15689/ap.2020.1904.18487.06|s2cid=234965850|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>"O TESTE PALOGRÁFICO DO PROF. ESCALA" ([THE PALOGGRAPHIC/PALOGRAPHIC TEST OF PROF. ESCALA - January 6, 1961]) - "FGV" Digital Library - Brazil</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/abpt/article/view/14641|title=O teste palográfico do Prof. Escala|first1=Agostinho|last1=Minicucci|first2=Iron Ramos de|last2=Bastos|date=January 6, 1961|journal=Arquivos Brasileiros de Psicotécnica|volume=13|issue=1|pages=17–22|via=bibliotecadigital.fgv.br}}</ref><ref>"Escritura y Personalidad – do prof. A. Vels – Luis Miracle – Editor." ("Escritura y Personalidad. Las Bases Científicas De La Grafología" | "Hardcover – January 1, 1961 by Augusto Vels (Author)</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.amazon.com/Escritura-Personalidad-Bases-Cient%C3%ADficas-Grafolog%C3%ADa/dp/B0047W4FKS|title=Escritura y Personalidad. Las Bases Científicas De La Grafología|first=Augusto|last=Vels|date=January 1, 1961|publisher=Luis Miracle |via=Amazon}}</ref>

==Validity==

Projective tests are criticized from the perspective of [[statistical validity]] and [[psychometrics]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Lilienfeld|first1=Scott O.|last2=Wood|first2=James M.|last3=Garb|first3=Howard N.|date=2000|title=The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1529-1006.002|journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest|language=en|volume=1|issue=2|pages=27–66|doi=10.1111/1529-1006.002|pmid=26151980|s2cid=8197201|issn=1529-1006|via=|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last1=Taylor|first1=Whitney D.|title=Human Figure Drawings|date=2015-01-23|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp141|encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology|pages=1–6|editor-last=Cautin|editor-first=Robin L.|place=Hoboken, NJ, USA|publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Inc.|language=en|doi=10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp141|isbn=978-1-118-62539-2|access-date=2021-02-13|last2=Lee|first2=Catherine M.|s2cid=142799554 |editor2-last=Lilienfeld|editor2-first=Scott O.|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Seitz|first=Jay A.|date=2001|title=A Cognitive-Perceptual Analysis of Projective Tests Used with Children|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pms.2001.93.2.505|journal=Perceptual and Motor Skills|language=en|volume=93|issue=2|pages=505–522|doi=10.2466/pms.2001.93.2.505|pmid=11769908|s2cid=19518853|issn=0031-5125|via=|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Most of the supporting studies on the validity of projective tests isare poor or outdated.<ref name=":1" /> Proponents of projective tests claim there is a discrepancy between [[statistical validity]] and [[clinical validity]].<ref>[[Leopold Szondi]] (1960) ''Das zweite Buch: Lehrbuch der Experimentellen Triebdiagnostik''. Huber, Bern und Stuttgart, 2nd edition. Ch.27, From the Spanish translation, B)II ''Las condiciones estadisticas'', p.396. Quotation: {{blockquote|En esta crítica aparece siempre ''la conocida discrepancia entre la validez estadistica y clinica de todos los «tests» de psicologia profunda''}}</ref>

In the case of clinical use, they rely heavily on [[clinical judgment]], lack [[reliability (statistics)|statistical reliability]] and [[statistical validity]] and many have no standardized criteria to which results may be compared, however this is not always the case. These tests are used frequently, though the [[scientific evidence]] is sometimes debated. There have been many empirical studies based on projective tests (including the use of standardized norms and samples), particularly more established tests. The criticism of lack of scientific evidence to support them and their continued popularity has been referred to as the "projective paradox".<ref name = Cordon>{{cite book |author=Cordón, Luis A. |title=Popular psychology: an encyclopedia |publisher=Greenwood Press |___location=Westport, Conn |year=2005 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/popularpsycholog0000cord/page/201 201–204] |isbn=978-0-313-32457-4 |url=https://archive.org/details/popularpsycholog0000cord/page/201 }}</ref>

Line 113 ⟶ 114:

Responding to the statistical criticism of his projective test, [[Leopold Szondi]] said that his test actually discovers "fate and existential possibilities hidden in the inherited familial unconscious and the [[personal unconscious]], even those hidden because never lived through or because have been rejected. Is any statistical method able to span, understand and integrate mathematically all these possibilities? I deny this categorically."<ref>Szondi (1960) ''Das zweite Buch: Lehrbuch der Experimentellen Triebdiagnostik''. Huber, Bern und Stuttgart, 2nd edition. Ch.27, From the Spanish translation, B)II ''Las condiciones estadisticas'', p.396</ref>

Other research, however, has established that projective tests measure things that responsive tests do not, though it is theoretically possible to combine the two, e.g., Spangler, 1992.<ref>Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 172, No.1, 140-154140–154.</ref> Decades of works by advocates, e.g., David C. McClelland, David Winter, Abigail Stewart, and, more recently, Oliver Schultheiss, have shown clear validity for these tools for certain personality traits, most especially implicit motivation (as contrasted with self-attributed or "explicit" motivation, which are conscious states),<ref>McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger 1989</ref>{{Incomplete short citation|date=July 2022}} and that criticisms of projective tools based on techniques used for responsive tools is simply an inappropriate method of measurement. Moreover, Soley and Smith report that when used with larger Ns in research, as opposed to the clinical assessment of an individual, projective tests can exhibit high validity and reliability.<ref name=SoleySmith2008/>

==Concerns==

Line 147 ⟶ 148:

* [[Bruno Klopfer]]

* [[Ernest Dichter]]

* [[Holtzman Inkblotinkblot Testtechnique]]

* [[Pareidolia]]

* [[The Duess Test]]

* [[Identification Projection Series]]

{{div col end}}