Running head: EVALUATING A STANDARDIZED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1

Evaluating A Standardized Psychological Assessment

Julie Y. Bunnak

Psy8240

Advanced Psychological Testing

e-mail: jbunnak@capellauniversity.edu

Instructor: Dr. Marilyn Marks-Frey

EVALUATING A STANDARDIZED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 2

RORSCHACH ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (R-PAS)

Choca, J.P., & Rossini, E.D. (2018). Interpreting the Results: A Four-Step Framework and

Advanced Interpretation Strategies. Assessing Using the Rorschach Inkblot Test,

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

This resource offers insight into the administration and interpretative strategies of the Rorschach

Inkblot Test. The four step framework of interpretation starts with administration; asking

appropriate prompts and questions to obtain further information from clients with poor

responses, item interpretations; clinician must maintain receptivity to idiosyncratic responses,

repetitive phrases, or preoccupation with topic, structural summary using scales; ability to

discriminate between high and low markers, and sequence assessment; taking into consideration

global trends and how different client answered card from others.

The Rorschach Performance Assessment System, or R-PAS, is a projective test based on the

psychoanalytic theoretical basis used to garner deeper understanding into the underlying

thoughts, feelings, and exaggerated perceptions that the client may not be fully aware of (Weiner

& Greene, 2017). As the client scored high TRIN and VRIN scores, the test will be used to help

determine the underlying issues that may have led to high defensive answers. The test is intended

for diverse populations; as it was normed on 4704 protocols across 17 different countries, and

those from ages 5 to adulthood. Meta-analytic studies show that there are high correlation

variables between the Rorschach and the MMPI; attesting to the validity in test. There are also

high levels of intercoder agreement with coders that are adequately trained in the R-PAS. The

similarities in scores between the R-PAS and the RCS shows test-retest reliability (Meyer et al.,

2019).
EVALUATING A STANDARDIZED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3

Various Rorschach constructs are available for interpretation. The Rorschach may also help to

confirm whether the client developed somatic and depressive issues as coping mechanisms due

to her inability to ask for what she wants and possible hidden fears about life and putting herself

forward; high introversion and high repression scores from MMPI-2. The Oral Dependency

Scale; used to determined heightened dependency traits, interpersonal sensitivity, and insecure

attachment, may be used to garner a deeper understanding into client’s issues in this area. As the

client has high repressive scores, the Mutuality of Autonomy Scale may be used to help

determine the client’s perception of themselves, others, and the adaptive ability in relationships

(Meyer et al., 2019).

THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST (TAT)

Serfass, D.G., & Sherman, R.A. (2013). Personality and perceptions of situations from the

Thematic Apperception Test. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, p. 708-718.

Although lacking in true empirical evidence to its psychometric soundness, this resource offers

some support to the Thematic Apperception Test, or TAT, and its correlation of situational

perception to the Big Five personality traits of 1. Openness, 2. Conscientiousness, 3.

Extraversion, 4. Agreeableness, and 5. Neuroticism; quite specifically neuroticism and openness.

The Thematic Apperception Test is a projective test based on the psychoanalytic discipline to

help the clinical professional examine and reveal the client’s inner conflict or issues that may be

hidden or unrevealed. The age range of the TAT is between 5 and 79 years (Weiner & Greene,

2017). Absent of standardized norms, the test requires the subjective interpretation of the

clinician. However, scales or constructs; like the Big Five Personality Traits, can be used

(Inslegers et al., 2014). While the validity measures are low, classifications of the TAT
EVALUATING A STANDARDIZED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 4

correlated to the MMPI data have been shown to be 88% correct. While internal consistency is

low; as each TAT card represents new and varying situations and responses, the new method of

calculating internal consistency has yielded better results (Cronbach’s alpha=.84). Inter-rater

reliability and test-retest reliability shows variability across scoring techniques (Weiner &

Greene, 2017).

Like the R-PAS, the TAT can access various constructs and scale systems for scoring and

interpretation. The Defense Mechanisms Manual (DMM) can be used to assess the three

defenses of denial, projection, and identification. This may be useful, as the client did score high

in TRIN and VRIN scales on the MMPI-2. Social Cognition and Object Relations SCOR Scale

assesses the four dimensions of 1) complexity; richness and differentiation of how the person

perceives themselves and others, 2) affect-tone; affective quality and degree of malevolence or

pain is expected from others, 3) emotional investment; perception of relationships as meaningful

or used in instrumental ways, and 4) social causality; the logical, complex, and psychologically

minded facets of behaviors, thoughts, and feelings (Inslegers et al., 2014). With high scores in

somatic complaints (RC1-som) in the MMPI-2, the client is likely to reject attribution of

personal problems to psychological issues. However, the SCOR scale may offer insight to how

the client sees themselves and allow the clinician to gauge the level of receptivity and acceptance

of treatment. This scale may also expose how the client currently feels about current or past

interpersonal relationships and how they approach them as meaningful or even possibly hold

resentment towards family members.

EVALUATING A STANDARDIZED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 5

Reference

Dana, Richard H., "A Manual for Objective TAT Scoring" (1956). Regional Research Institute.

34.

Inslegers, R., Vanheule, S., Meganck, R., Debaere, V., Trenson, E., Desmet, M., & Roelstraete,

B. (2014). The Assessment of the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale on TAT

and Interview Data. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(4), p. 372.

Meyer, G.J., Mihura, J.L., Erdberg, P., Viglione, D.J., Erard, R.E., & Miguel, F.K. (2019).

Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS). Retrieved from https://www.r-

pas.org/Default.aspx

Murray, H.A. (2019). Thematic Apperception Test Manual. Retrieved from

https://www.parinc.com/Products/Pkey/440

Weiner, I.B., & Greene, R.L. (2017). Handbook of Psychological Assessment (2nd ed.).

Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

EVALUATING A STANDARDIZED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Psychological Test Evaluation Worksheet
Item
Name of Assessment/Publisher Website
Intended Purpose/Use
Specific Psychological Domains Measured
Age Range
Reading Level
Norm Sample Demographics/Characteristics
User Qualification Requirements
Theoretical Basis of Test
Evidence of Test Validity/Forms of Validity
Tested
Evidence of Test Reliability/Forms of
Reliability Tested
Research on Appropriateness for Diverse
Populations
Validity Scales or Measures Within the Test
to Indicate Response Style
Instructions for Administration/Checklist
6
Description
Rorschach Performance Assessment System
(R-PAS)
Seek understanding to possible underlying
thoughts, feelings, and embellished thoughts
client may not be fully aware.
Projective measure of personality
5 years to adult
N/A
4704 protocols, obtained in 21 different
samples, across 17 different countries
Qualification Level: C requirements
Psychoanalysis
Meta-analytic studies show high correlations
between Rorschach and MMPI variables.
High levels of intercoder agreement with
coders adequately trained in R-PAS.
However, there is difficulty in establishing
empirical validity in these types of projective
tests.
Similarities in scores with both R-PAS and
RCS and test-retest reliability
Norm samples retrieved from 17 different
countries, good chance can be used with
diverse populations.
Meta-analytic studies with MMPI, and high
intercoder agreement.
1. Ensure seating arrangement is
appropriate; client can see cards
clearly and has comfortable area to
write down answer or notes.
2. Observation of client’s note-taking
behavior is clear.
3. Prepare cards.
4. Prepare verbal instructions to go
alongside cards.
EVALUATING A STANDARDIZED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Item
Scoring Methods/Special Instructions
Resources for Interpretation
Other Important Information
Strengths of Test
Weaknesses of Test
Psychological Test Evaluation Worksheet
Item
Name of Assessment/Publisher Website
Intended Purpose/Use
Specific Psychological Domains Measured
Age Range
7
Description
5. There is minimal intrusion by
administrator during client answers.
6. Obtain appropriate inquiry questions
for further information; if answers are
minimized or defensive.
1. Preparation of response sheets,
scoring sheets, and summary sheets.
2. Use plain white 8 ½ by 11” paper,
turned sideways with three columns
marked. First section records card
number and latency. Second column
records free associations. Third
column records inquiry.
Rorschach interpretation manual.
Psychoanalytical Examination, Resources
(books, video, recordings) on Rorschach
interpretation.
Deep understanding into personality
characteristics and behavioral tendencies.
Underlying thoughts and feelings that client
may not even be aware of.
Projective tests can be considered lacking in
standardization. Cannot successfully be
empirically validated.
Description
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
Used to reveal client’s inner conflict that may
be hidden and unrevealed.
Emotions, dominant drives, motivations,
traits, and conflicts.
5 years to 79 years
EVALUATING A STANDARDIZED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Item
Reading Level
Norm Sample Demographics/Characteristics
User Qualification Requirements
Theoretical Basis of Test
Evidence of Test Validity/Forms of Validity
Tested
Evidence of Test Reliability/Forms of
Reliability Tested
Research on Appropriateness for Diverse
Populations
Validity Scales or Measures Within the Test
to Indicate Response Style
Instructions for Administration/Checklist
Scoring Methods/Special Instructions
8
Description
N/A
Absence of standardization or norms, as it is
reliant upon subjective interpretation.
Qualification Level: C
Psychoanalysis/Projective Test
Validity measure is low. However,
classifications correlated to MMPI data were
88% correct. There is difficulty in empirically
validating this type of projective test.
Internal consistency is low; each TAT card
represents new and different situation and
often yields different responses. Inter-rater
reliability and test-retest reliability are
variable across scoring techniques. New
method of calculating internal consistency
created better results; Cronbach’s alpha
=.84.
As scoring is subjective, familiarity with client
culture and background would serve as best
interpreter.
N/A
1. Prepare seating, make sure client can
see cards clearly and has comfortable
writing area.
2. Make sure observation of client’s
body language can be seen.
3. Prepare cards
4. Verbal instructions to go alongside
cards
5. Minimal intrusion by administrator
during client answers.
6. Prepare appropriate inquiry question
to obtain further information.
Can use H.A. Murray scoring system; coding
every sentence for presence of 28 needs and
20 environmental influences, Likert scale
based on intensity, frequency, duration, and
importance. Current scoring utilizes Defenses
EVALUATING A STANDARDIZED PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Item
Resources for Interpretation
Other Important Information
Strengths of Test
Weaknesses of Test
9
Description
Mechanisms Manual (DMM), Social
Cognition and Object Relations SCOR Scale,
or Personal Problem-Solving System (PPSS-
R)
Personal Problem-Solving System (PPSS-R)
has cognitive behavioral framework and uses
only 6 of 31 TAT cards.
Can obtain answers that client may feel
defensive about exposing.
Subjective interpretation and poor
psychometric properties, clinician must be
careful and err on the side of caution during
interpretation. Cannot be empirically
validated.