The empirical evidence on the Rorschach is reviewed using three definitions of clinical utility: (a) the nature of professional attitudes and extent of clinical usage, (b) the extent of evidence for reliability, validity, diagnostic efficiency, and incremental validity, and (c) the extent of evidence that Rorschach data improve clinical decision-making and/or treatment outcome. Surveys demonstrate that the Ror-schach is extensively used; however, these data are insufficient to demonstrate clinical utility as they do not address the rational, scientific, and ethical requirements of professional standards for psychological measures. After reviewing conceptual issues in Rorschach research (especially those in the Comprehen-sive System) the authors conclude that there is little scientific evidence to support the clinical utility of the Rorschach. Given the absence of data evaluating how the Rorschach is used in routine practice and whether its use is consistent with the manner in which it is used in research, there is currently no scientific basis for justifying the use of Rorschach scales in psychological assessments. The Rorschach has the dubious distinction of being, simulta-neously, the most cherished and the most reviled of all psycho-logical assessment tools. Countless articles and chapters reviewing the Rorschach over the past 50 years have told the same story: The
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hunsley et al. (1999) studied this question.