Psychological Assessment Copyright 1996 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1996, Vol. 8, No. 21200-205 1040-3590/96/$3.00

Construct Validity of the Rorschach Oral Dependency Scale: 1967-1995

R o b e r t F. B o r n s t e i n
Gettysburg College

A review of research examining the construct validity ofJ. M. Masling, L. Rabie, and S. H. Blond-
heim's ( 1967 ) Rorschach Oral Dependency (ROD) scale as a measure of interpersonal dependency
revealed that this scale has demonstrated good interrater reliability, and that evidence regarding the
convergent and discriminant validity of the ROD scale is generally strong. Mixed results have been
obtained in studies assessing the internal reliability of ROD scale scores. There have been very few
studies examining the predictive validity and retest reliability of the ROD scale, and few studies
assessing the relationship of ROD scores to scores on other objective and projective measures of
dependency. Implications of these findings for laboratory and clinical research involving the ROD
scale are discussed, and suggestions for future studies in this area are offered.

Masling, Rabie, a n d Blondheim's (1967) Rorschach Oral
Dependency (ROD) scale has been used in more than 50 pub-
lished studies since the late 1960s, including numerous investi-
gations involving psychiatric inpatient and outpatient partici-
pants (Bornstein, 1992; Masling, 1986). A review of the litera-
ture on the etiology and dynamics of interpersonal dependency
revealed that the ROD scale has been the most widely used pro-
jective measure of dependency during the past 50 years
(Bornstein, 1993).
Given the frequency with which ROD scores have been used
to assess level of dependency in children, adolescents, and
adults, it is not surprising that some investigations have assessed
the construct validity of the ROD scale as a measure of inter-
personal dependency. The purpose of this article is to review
these construct validity findings to delineate those aspects of the
ROD scale that are supported by the results of relevant empiri-
cal studies and to discover which aspects of the ROD scale may
require modification or further examination by researchers.
Two main questions are addressed in this review: (a) Does the
ROD scale actually predict dependency-related behavior in
clinical and nonclinical participants? and (b) Are the psycho-
metric properties of the ROD scale acceptable with respect to
contemporary criteria for establishing the construct validity of
a psychological test?
O v e r v i e w o f the R O D Scale
Masling et al. (1967) developed the ROD scale by modifying
Schafer's (1954) clinical criteria for assessing oral-dependent
characteristics in psychiatric patients. The most important re-
finement introduced by Masling et al. was the delineation of
specific, operational criteria for ROD scoring. As Table 1 shows,
there are 16 categories of scorable responses in Masling et al.'s
system. Categories 6, 9, 10, 1"1, 13, and 14 represent depen-
dency-related percepts, while Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rob-
ert F. Bornstein, Department of Psychology, Gettysburg College, Get-
tysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.
200
12 represent "oral" percepts. ROD scoring is entirely content
based, and no structural data are used in this scoring system.
The inclusion of oral (i. e., food- and mouth-related) percepts
in addition to dependent percepts reflects the psychoanalytic
roots of the ROD scale. In.addition to testing hypotheses re-
garding the etiology and dynamics of dependent personality
traits in a variety of subject groups, the ROD scale has also been
used to test hypotheses regarding the psychoanalytic theory of
the "oral character." Reviews of the empirical literature
wherein the ROD scale was used to assess aspects oforality, oral
fixation, and Freud's (1905, 1908) psychosexual stage model
have been provided by Juni (1993) and Masling ( 1986; Masling
& Schwartz, 1979). The present review is limited to an assess-
ment of the construct validity of the ROD scale as a measure of
interpersonal dependency; the question of whether the catego-
ries of oral percepts that are included in the ROD scale are ben-
efieial or problematic in this regard is taken up later.
ROD scores can be derived from existing (i.e., archival) Ror-
schach protocols, from individually administered Rorschach
protocols collected in the standard manner, or from data col-
lected from a group Rorschach administration (Masling,
1986). Studies have demonstrated that method of administra-
tion does not affect the reliability and validity of ROD scores
(Bornstein, 1992; Masling, 1986 ).
When ROD scores are derived from archival or individually
administered Rorschach protocols, only the free association is
scored. The participant receives one point for each response
that contains one or more percepts from the categories listed in
Table 1. The number of responses containing at least one oral-
dependent percept is then divided by the total number of Ror-
schach responses (i.e., R) to control for response productivity.
ROD scores obtained from individually administered Ror-
schach protocols typically range from 0 to about 35%, with the
distribution of ROD scores almost invariably being somewhat
positively skewed (Bornstein, 1993; Masling, 1986). When
ROD score distributions are extremely skewed, researchers
have used nonparametric statistics (rather than parametric
statistics) to assess the relationship of ROD scores to other vari-
ables (e.g., Bornstein, Bowers, & Robinson, 1995 ).
In the group administration of the ROD scale, participants
 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE ROD SCALE 201

Table 1 willing to acknowledge dependent feelings and behaviors on

Categories of Scorable Responses on the ROD Scale self-report tests (see Bornstein, Bowers, & Bonner, 1996).
When questionnaire measures are used to assess "self-attrib-
Category Sample responses uted" dependency needs, men tend to minimize their self-
1. Foods and drinks Milk, whiskey, boiled lobster reports of dependent traits, attitudes, and behaviors, resulting
2. Food sources Restaurant, saloon, breast in significant gender differences in dependency scores, with
3. Food objects Kettle, silverware, drinking glass women consistently obtaining higher scores than men (Born-
4. Food providers Waiter, cook, bartender stein, 1995; Bornstein, Rossner, Hill, & Stepanian, 1994).
5. Passive food receivers Bird in nest, fat or thin man
6. Begging and praying Dog begging, person saying prayers Although the low face validity of the ROD scale helps to min-
7. Food organs Mouth, stomach, lips, teeth imize self-report and self-presentation confoundS, the ROD
8. Oral instruments Lipstick, cigarette, tuba scale has at least one disadvantage relative to widely used ques-
9. Nurturers Jesus, mother, father, doctor, God tionnaire measures of dependency: It does not yield separate
10. Gifts and gift-givers Christmas tree, cornucopia subscales assessing different aspects of dependency-related be-
11. Good luck objects Wishbone, four-leafclover
12. Oral activity Eating, talking, singing, kissing havior. Many questionnaire measures of dependency (e.g., the
13. Passivity and helplessness Confused person, lost person Interpersonal Dependency Inventory, Hirschfeld et al., 1977)
14. Pregnancy and reproductive Placenta, womb, ovaries, embryo yield separate subscales assessing different dimensions of de-
organs pendent behavior, in addition to producing an overall depen-
15. "Baby talk" responses Patty-cake, bunny rabbit, pussy cat
16. Negations of oral dependent No mouth, woman with no breasts dency score. These dependency-related subscales allow re-
percepts searchers to examine in detail the interplay of various cognitive,
affective, and motivational components of dependency over
Note. In Category 1, animals are scored only if they are invariably time and across situation (see Bornstein, 1993, for a detailed
associated with eating (e.g., do not score duck or turkey unless food- discussion of this issue).
descriptive phrases are used, such as roast duck or turkey leg). In Cate-
gory 3, pot and cauldron are scored only if the act of cooking is implied. In the following sections, I review evidence assessing the reli-
In Category 13, baby is scored only if there is some suggestion of passiv- ability and validity of ROD scale scores in children and adults
ity or frailness. In Category 14, pelvis, penis, vagina, and sex organs are and in clinical as well as nonclinical participants.
not scored. ROD = Rorschach Oral Dependency.

are shown slides of standard Rorschach inkblots projected onto
a screen. Participants are asked to provide three written re-
sponses each to Cards I, II, III, VIII, and X, and two responses
to each of the remaining five cards. As is true for ROD scores
that are collected from individually administered Rorschach
protocols, one point is assigned for each oral-dependent percept
in the group Rorschach administration. ROD scores obtained
in this manner typically range from 0 to 8 (i.e., from 0 to 32% ),
a n d - - a s with ROD scores obtained from individually adminis-
tered Rorschach protocols--the distribution of ROD scores
collected from a group administration tends to be positively
skewed.
Because participants are unaware of the criteria and content
categories used in ROD scoring, it is very difficult for partici-
pants to bias and distort their responses on the ROD scale. In
fact, research has demonstrated that (a) participants are unable
to infer the personality dimension being assessed by the ROD
scale (Bornstein, Rossner, Hill, & Stepanian, 1994, Experiment
1 ); and (b) participants are unable to fake their responses to
this scale so as to appear highly dependent or highly indepen-
dent, even when they are explicitly instructed to do so by the
experimenter (Bornstein, Rossner, Hill, & Stepanian, 1994, Ex-
periment 2).
ROD scores appear to assess what McClelland, Koestner, and
Weinberger (1989) termed implicit needs, that is, needs and
motivations that participants exhibit on indirect measures (e.g.,
the Rorschach) but that participants might be unable or unwill-
ing to verbalize directly on self-report tests. With this in mind,
it is not surprising that men and women (and boys and girls)
typically obtain comparable scores on the ROD scale
(Bornstein, 1995), despite the fact that, in general, men are un-
Reliability Data
Interrater Reliability
Because some degree of ambiguity is involved in deriving in-
formation from any type of projective test, establishing in-
terrater reliability for the scoring of projective test data is criti-
cal before issues regarding the validity of the scale in question
are addressed (Weiner, 1994 ). To establish interrater reliability
in ROD scoring, two or more raters blind to each other's ratings
score a subsample of the ROD protocols used in a study
(Masling, 1986). Three approaches have been used to quantify
interrater reliability in ROD scoring. The first--and least
powerful--method has been to calculate the percentage of
agreement between two independent raters. Typically, these per-
centages of agreement range from 85% to 95% (e.g., Bornstein,
Manning, Krukonis, Rossner, & Mastrosimone, 1993; Juni &
Semel, 1982; Masling et al., 1967; Weiss & Masling, 1970).
A more rigorous approach to establishing interrater reliabil-
ity in ROD scoring involves calculating the correlation between
two independent raters' scores for a set of ROD protocols. Vir-
tually every ROD investigation conducted during the past 2 de-
cades has reported this statistic. These Pearson correlation co-
efficients are invariably quite high, typically being greater than
.90, regardless of whether data were collected from clinical or
nonclinical participants (e.g., Bornstein et al., 1993; Bornstein,
Rossner, & Hill, 1994; Gordon & Tegtemeyer, 1983; Juni,
Masling, & Brannon, 1979; Masling, O'Neill, & Katkin, 1982;
Shilkret & Masling, 1981 ).
Finally, studies have sometimes reported the kappa coeffi-
cient (Spitzer, Cohen, Fliess, & Endicott, 1967) in addition to a
Pearson correlation coefficient when calculating interrater reli-
ability for ROD scoring. The rationale for inclusion of the
202 BORNSTEIN
kappa coefficient is that the relatively low base rate of oral-de-
pendent imagery in most Rorschach protocols can artificially
inflate interrater reliability values when these values are deter-
mined by percentages of agreement or Pearson correlation co-
efficients. The kappa coefficient provides an index of interrater
reliability above what would be expected by chance alone. Stud-
ies in this area have generally reported kappa coefficients in ex-
cess of.80 for the ROD scale (e.g., Duberstein & Talbot, 1993;
Greenberg & Bornstein, 1989; O'Neill & Bornstein, 1990,
1991 ). Kappa coefficients in this range are acceptable for any
psychological test or measure and are particularly high for a
projective test (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Retest Reliability
Only one study has assessed the retest reliability of ROD
scores. Bornstein, Rossner, and Hill (1994) collected ROD pro-
tocols from a mixed-sex sample of undergraduates under iden-
tical conditions on two separate occasions, with one third of the
participants retested after 16 weeks, one third of the partici-
pants retested after 28 weeks, and the remaining participants
retested after 60 weeks. Comparable retest reliability coeffi-
cients were found for women and men in this study, with retest
reliability being .67 following a 16-week interest interval, .48
following a 28-week interval, and .46 following a 60-week
interval.
Internal Reliability
Although researchers rarely assess the intemal reliability of
projective test scores, psychometricians now recognize that in-
ternal reliability issues can be as salient for projective tests as
they are for self-report measures (Parker, Hanson, & Hunsley,
1988). Two approaches have been used to assess the internal
reliability of ROD scores. Bornstein, Hill, Robinson, Calabrese,
and Bowers (1996) calculated coefficient alpha (Cronbach,
1951 ) for the ROD scale by collecting ROD protocols from a
large, mixed-sex sample of undergraduates and then treating
each Rorschach card as a single test item that could contribute
to the total ROD score (Parker, 1983). Bornstein et al. found
that the internal reliability of ROD scale scores (i.e., coefficient
alpha) was .61 for women and .62 for men.
Other investigations have assessed the relationship between
the amount of dependent imagery and food-related imagery in
participants' ROD protocols. These studies produced mixed re-
sults. One study in this area (Bornstein et al., 1993) found sig-
nificant, positive correlations between ROD dependency and
food-mouth scores in men (r = .44) and women (r = .35).
However, two similar studies (Bornstein & Greenberg, 1991;
Shilkret & Masling, 1981 ) found nonsignificant correlations be-
tween ROD dependency and food-mouth scores (r = .01 in the
Bornstein & Greenberg study, and r = - . 0 6 in the Shilkret &
Masling study). When these correlation coefficients are com-
bined by using meta-analytic techniques (Rosenthal, 1984), the
overall correlation between ROD dependency and food-mouth
scores turns out to be small in magnitude (r = .10) and
nonsignificant.
Validity D a t a
Convergent Validity
Many studies have assessed the relationship of ROD scores to
dependency-related behaviors. For example, Shilkret and Mas-
ling ( 1981 ) demonstrated that ROD scores predict help-seeking
behavior (r = .85), when help-seeking is operationalized in
terms of a participant's willingness to ask an experimenter for
help when attempting to solve difficult puzzles in the laboratory.
High scores on the ROD scale are also associated with increased
yielding in an Asch-type conformity experiment (r = .32; Mas-
ling, Weiss, & Rothschild, 1968). Along slightly different lines,
high ROD scores are associated with cooperativeness and com-
pliance with figures of authority (Bornstein & Masling, 1985;
Masling, O'Neill, & Jayne, 1981 ). In these studies, college stu-
dents with high ROD scores completed their introductory psy-
chology research participation requirement earlier in the se-
mester than did students with low ROD scores.
Studies of the relationship between ROD scores and scores
on other self-report and projective measures of dependency sup-
port and extend the findings obtained in studies of the depen-
dency-behavior link. For example, Masling et al. ( 1967 ) found
a significant positive correlation (r = .58) between ROD scores
and scores on a Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) measure of
dependency in a mixed-sex sample of college students. In a sim-
ilar vein, Bornstein et al. (1993; Bornstein, Rossner, & Hill,
1994) found significant, positive correlations between ROD
scores and scores on Hirschfeld et al.'s (1977) Interpersonal De-
pendency Inventory (IDI) in mixed-sex college student sam-
ples: R O D - I D I correlations in Bornstein et al's studies ranged
from .32 to .67 in women, and from .37 to .48 in men.
Studies examining the relationship between ROD scores and
variables that are theoretically related to dependency offer ad-
ditional support for the convergent validity of the ROD scale.
High scores on the ROD scale are associated with self-reports
of insecure attachment in college students (r = . 19; Duberstein
& Talbot, 1993) and with behavioral indexes of difficulty in ter-
minating psychotherapy in psychiatric inpatients (r = .46;
Greenberg & Bornstein, 1989). Other studies have found that
high ROD scores are associated with increased risk for internal-
izing disorders in children (r = .30; Gordon & Tegtemeyer,
1983) and with a defensive style characterized by internally di-
rected (rather than outwardly expressed) anger and aggression
( r = .34; Bornstein, Greenberg, Leone, & Galley, 1990). In ad-
dition, high ROD scores are associated with increased risk for
several forms of psychopathology that are theoretically related
to dependency, including depression (O'Neill & Bornstein,
1991), alcoholism (Bertrand & Masling, 1969; Weiss & Mas-
ling, 1970), and eating disorders (Bornstein & Greenberg,
1991).
Along somewhat different lines, several studies have shown
that high scorers on the ROD scale are sensitive to interpersonal
cues (Juni & Semel, 1982; Masling, Johnson, & Saturansky,
1974; Masling, Schiffner, & Shenfeld, 1980). In these investiga-
tions, participants who scored high on the ROD scale were bet-
ter able than participants who scored low on the ROD scale to
infer the attitudes and personal beliefs of acquaintances, teach-
ers, and therapists (the mean ROD score-interpersonal sensi-
 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE ROD SCALE
tivity correlation in these studies was.32). Masling et al. (1982)
further found that participants who scored high on the ROD
scale are particularly upset by interpersonal conflict and rejec-
tion. Finally, Juni and LoCascio (1985) found that high ROD
scores were associated with preference for psychotherapy that
involved a great deal of therapist-patient contact (r = .25), and
Juni et al. (1979) found that high scorers on the ROD scale
engaged in physical contact with a peer during a laboratory
problem-solving task more readily than did low scorers on the
scale (r = .39).
Discriminant Validity
As is true for most psychological tests, researchers have de-
voted more attention to convergent validity issues than to con-
cerns regarding the discriminant validity of the ROD scale.
Nonetheless, several noteworthy findings have emerged in this
area during the past 20 years. For example, Gordon and Teg-
temeyer (1983) and Kertzman (1980) found that ROD scores
were unrelated to IQ scores in mixed-sex samples of children
and adults. Along somewhat different lines, Bornstein and
Greenberg ( 1991 ) found no relationship between ROD scores
and participant age in a sample of female psychiatric inpatients.
Gordon and Tegtemeyer (1983) found that ROD scores were
only weakly related to locus of control scores in children,
whereas Kertzman (1980) found no relationship between ROD
scores and socioeconomic status in adults. Finally, Bornstein,
Rossner, and Hill (1994) demonstrated that ROD scores were
unaffected by the number and severity of stressful life events
experienced by participants during 16-, 28-, and 60-week in-
tertest periods.
Discussion and Conclusion
Two main questions were posed at the outset of this article:
(a) Does the ROD scale actually predict dependency-related be-
havior in clinical and nonclinical participants? and (b) Are the
psychometric properties of the ROD scale acceptable with re-
spect to contemporary criteria for establishing the construct va-
lidity of a psychological test? Having reviewed the results of
nearly 30 years of research examining the construct validity of
the ROD scale as a measure of interpersonal dependency, we are
now in a position to address these questions.
Laboratory, clinical, and field studies confirm that the ROD
scale does, in fact, predict dependency-related behavior in a va-
riety of participant groups. Studies of the relationship of ROD
scores to behavioral indexes of dependency, investigations of the
relationship of ROD scores to scores on other objective and pro-
jective dependency tests, and studies of the relationship between
ROD scores and variables theoretically related to dependency
have produced remarkably consistent results. These findings
converge to indicate that the ROD scale is a useful measure of
overt dependent behavior--as well as a variety of dependency-
related behaviors--in children, adolescents, and adults. Not
only do these results support the construct validity of the ROD
scale as a measure of interpersonal dependency but they also
provide strong evidence that a carefully constructed, empiri-
cally based Rorschach scoring system can predict important as-
pects of participants' interpersonal behavior (see also Exner,
203
1986; Masling, 1986; McClelland et al., 1989; Piotrowski,
1984).
Findings regarding the psychometric properties of the ROD
scale have generally been positive, although studies in this area
also point to some problematic issues that warrant further ex-
amination by researchers. Specifically, highly supportive find-
ings have emerged for the ROD scale with respect to interrater
reliability. However, only one study has assessed the retest reli-
ability of ROD scores, and this study found that the ROD scale
does not show adequate retest reliability over 28- and 60-week
intertest periods (Bornstein, Rossner, & Hill, 1994).
The results of internal reliability studies have also been
mixed. On the positive side, Bornstein, Hill, Robinson, Cala-
brese, and Bowers' (1996) results suggest that the ROD scale
does, in fact, have adequate internal consistency. On the nega-
tive side, however, the modest intercorrelations of ROD depen-
dency and food-mouth scores suggest that these two ROD vari-
ables may, in fact, be tapping different aspects of personality.
Future studies should investigate whether one or the other of
these scoring dimensions shows better predictive validity with
respect to participants' dependency-related behaviors. Perhaps
some weighted combination of ROD dependency and food-
mouth scores would produce stronger results than a simple
compilation of these scores. Alternatively, it may be that ROD
food-mouth scores do not contribute to the assessment of de-
pendency in a consistent, meaningful way and that these food-
mouth items should be dropped from the ROD scale.
The results of this review point to four construct validity is-
sues that warrant further attention from researchers. First and
foremost, although there have been numerous investigations ex-
amining the convergent validity of the ROD scale, the vast ma-
jority of these studies have used experimental designs wherein
participants' ROD scores and their dependency-related behav-
iors were assessed concurrently (cf. Greenberg & Bornstein,
1989). Thus, although the concurrent validity of the ROD scale
is wen-established, it is clear that greater attention must be paid
to examining the predictive validity of ROD scale scores.
A second limitation of research in this area involves ROD
scale norms. It is unfortunate that no established norms are
available for the ROD scale, and a critical methodological limi-
tation of extant studies in this area precludes the development
of useful norms for this scale on the basis of the available data.
The problem, simply stated, is this: Every study involving clin-
ical participants has used individual Rorschach administration
to derive ROD scores, whereas every study involving nonclini-
cal participants has used a group Rorschach administration to
derive these scores.
To be sure, there is ample evidence that ROD scores derived
from individually administered Rorschach protocols and ROD
scores derived from a group Rorschach administration do, in
fact, produce comparable results with respect to salient reliabil-
ity and validity issues (see Bornstein, 1992; Masling, 1986).
However, until a study is conducted wherein ROD scores are
derived from individual and group Rorschachs administered to
the same participants under comparable conditions, it will be
impossible to develop adequate norms for this measure.
A third limitation of extant research in this area involves the
assessment of the relationship between ROD scores and scores
on other widely used measures of dependency. Although there
204 BORNSTEIN
have been several noteworthy studies of this issue (Bornstein et
al., 1993; Bornstein, Rossner, Hill, & Stepanian, 1994; Masling
et al., 1967), these investigations have been limited to nonclin-
ical participants. Furthermore, the relationships between par-
ticipants' R O D scores and their scores on m a n y widely used
measures of interpersonal dependency remain unexamined.
Research assessing the relationship between participants' R O D
scores and their scores on Millon's ( 1987 ) M C M I dependency
scale; Beck, Epstein, Harrison, and Emery's (1983) Socio-
tropy-Autonomy scale; Blatt, D'Attlitti, and Quinlan's (1976)
D E Q dependency scale, and Navran's (1954) M M P I depen-
dency scale would be obvious starting points for research in this
area.
Finally, it would be worthwhile to assess the relationship be-
tween R O D scale scores and dependent personality disorder
( D P D ) symptoms and diagnoses (American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation, 1994). Although there have been several investigations
assessing the relationship of R O D scores to psychiatric symp-
toms and diagnoses (e.g., Bornstein & Greenberg, 1991; Weiss
& Masling, 1970), these studies have been limited to the assess-
ment of Axis I disorders, and the relationship between R O D
scores and Axis lI psychopathology remains unexamined.
Given clinicians' and researchers' interest in the etiology and
dynamics of Axis II disorders in various participant groups,
such a study would not only contribute to the construct validity
of the R O D scale but might also provide information regarding
the personality dynamics associated with different forms of
Axis II psychopathology.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders ( 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Harrison, R. P., & Emery, G. (1983). Develop-
ment of the Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale. Unpublished manuscript.
Bertrand, S., & Masling, J. (1969). Oral imagery and alcoholism.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74, 50-53.
Blatt, S. J., D'Affiitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of
depression in normal young adults. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology,
85, 383-389.
Bornstein, R. E (1992). The dependent personality: Developmental+
social, and clinical perspectives. PsychologicalBulletin, 112, 3-23.
Bornstein, R. E (1993). The dependent personality New York: Guilford
Press.
Bornstein, R. E ( 1995 ). Sex differences in objective and projective de-
pendency tests: A meta-analytic review. Assessment, 2, 319-331.
Bornstein, R. E, Bowers, K. S., & Bonner, S. (1996). Relationships of
objective and projective dependency scores to sex role orientation in
college student subjects. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 66, 555-
568.
Bornstein, R. E, Bowers, K. S., & Robinson, K. J. ( 1995 ). Differential
relationships of objective and projective dependency scores to self-
reports of interpersonal life events in college student subjects. Journal
of PersonalityAssessment, 65, 255-269.
Bornstein, R. F., & Greenberg, R. P. ( 1991 ). Dependency and eating
disorders in female psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 179, 148-152.
Bornstein, R. E, Greenberg, R. P., Leone, D. R., &Galley, D. J. (1990).
Defense mechanism correlates of orality. Journal of the American
Academy of Psychoanalysis, 18, 654-666.
Bornstein, R. E, Hill, E. R., Robinson, K. J., Calabrese, C., & Bowers,
K. S. (1996). Internal reliability of Rorschach Oral Dependency
Scale scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 145-
153.
Bornstein, R. F., Manning, K. A., Krukonis, A. B., Rossner, S. C., &
Mastrosimone, C. C. (1993). Sex differences in dependency: A com-
parison of objective and projective measures. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 61, 169-181.
Bornstein, R. F., & Masling, J. M. (1985). Orality and latency of vol-
unteering to serve as experimental subjects: A replication. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49, 306-310.
Bornstein, R. E, Rossner, S. C., & Hill, E. R. (1994). Retest reliability
of scores on objective and projective measures of dependency: Rela-
tionship to life events and intertest interval. Journal of Personality
Assessment. 62, 398-415.
Bornstein, R. F., Rossner, S. C., Hill, E. L., & Stepanian, M. L. (1994).
Face validity and fakability of objective and projective measures of
dependency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 363-386.
Cronbach, L. J. ( 1951 ). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Duberstein, P. R., & Talbot, N. L. (1993). Rorschach oral imagery, at-
tachment style, and interpersonal relatedness. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 61,294-310.
Exner, J. E. ( 1986 ). The Rorschach:'A comprehensive system ( Vol. 1).
New York: Wiley.
Freud, S. ( 1905 ). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. SE VII (pp.
125-248 ). London: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1908). Character and anal erotism. SE IX (pp. 167-176).
London: Hogarth.
Gordon, M., & Tegtemeyer, P. E (1983). Oral dependent content in
children's Rorschach protocols. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 5 7,
1163-1168.
Greenberg, R. P., & Bornstein, R. E (1989). Length of psychiatric hos-
pitalization and oral dependency. Journal of Personality Disorders, 3,
199-204.
Hirschfeld, R. M. A., Klerman, G. L., Gough, H. G., Barrett, J., Kor-
chin, S. J., & Chodoff, P. (1977). A measure of interpersonal depen-
dency. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 41, 610-618.
Juni, S. (1993). Rorschach content psychometry and fixation theory.
Genetic, Social and General PsychologyMonographs, 119, 75-98.
Juni, S., & LoCascio, R. ( 1985 ). Preference for counseling and psycho-
therapy as related to preoedipal fixation. PsychologicalReports. 46.
431-438.
Juni, S., Masling, J., & Brannon, R. ( 1979 ). Interpersonal touching and
orality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 235-237.
J uni, S., & Semel, S. R. ( 1982 ). Person perception as a function of oral-
ity and anality. Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 99-103.
Kertzman, D. (1980). Dependency, frustration tolerance and impulse
control in child abusers. Saratoga, CA: Century Twenty-One.
Masling, J. M. ( 1986 ). Orality, pathology and interpersonal behavior.
In J. Masling (Ed.), Empirical studies ofpsychoanalytic theories ( Vol.
2, pp. 73-106). Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Masling, J. M., Johnson, C., & Saturansky, C. (1974). Oral imagery,
accuracy of perceiving others, and performance in Peace Corps train-
ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 414-419.
Masling, J. M., O'Neill, R. M., & Jayne, C. ( 1981 ). Orality and latency
of volunteering to serve as experimental subjects. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 45, 20-22.
Masling, J. M., O'Neill, R. M., & Katkin, E. S. (1982). Autonomic
arousal, interpersonal climate and orality. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 529-534.
Masling, J. M., Rabie, L., & Blondheim, S. H. (1967). Obesity, level of
aspiration, and Rorschach and TAT measures of oral dependence.
Journal ofConsultingPsychology, 31,233-239.
Masling, J. M., Schiffner, J., & Shenfeld, M. (1980). Client perception
 CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE ROD SCALE
of the therapist, orality, and sex of client and therapist. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 27, 294-298.
Masling, J. M., & Schwartz, M. A. (1979). A critique of research in
psychoanalytic theory. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 100, 257-
307.
Masling, J. M., Weiss, L., & Rothschild, B. (1968). Relationships of
oral imagery to yielding behavior and birth order. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 32, 89-91.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do im-
plicit and self-attributed motives differ? Psychological Review, 96,
690-702.
Millon, T. (1987). Millon Clinical AIultiaxial Inventory--IL" Manual
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Navran, L, (1954). A rationally derived MMPI scale to measure depen-
dence. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18, 192.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Neill, R, M., & Bornstein, R. F. (1990). Oral dependence and gender:
Factors in help-seeking response set and self-reported psychopathol-
ogy in psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55,
28-40.
O'Neill, R. M., & Bornstein, R. F. (1991). Orality and depression in
psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Personality Disorders, 5, 1-7.
Parker, K. C. H. (1983). A meta-analysis of the reliability and validity
of the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 227-231.
205
Parker, K. C. H., Hanson, R. K., & Hunsley, J. (1988). MMPI, Ror-
schach and WAIS: A meta-analytic comparison of reliability, stability
and validity. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 367-373.
Piotrowski, C. (1984). The status of projective techniques. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 40, 1495-1502.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic techniques for social research.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Schafer, R. (1954). Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach testing.
New York: Grune & Stratton.
Shilkret, C. J., & Masling, J. M. ( 1981 ). Oral dependence and depen-
dent behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 125-129.
Spitzer, R. L., Cohen, J., Fliess, J. L., & Endicott, J. (1967). Quantifi-
cation of agreement in psychiatric diagnosis. Archives of GeneralPsy-
chiatry, 17, 83-87.
Weiner, I. B. (1994). The Rorschach Inkblot Method is not a test: Im-
plications for theory and practice. Journal of Personality Assessment,
62, 498-504.
Weiss, L. R., & Masling, J. M. (1970). Further validation of a Ror-
schach measure of oral imagery: A study of six clinical groups.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 76, 83-87.
Received J u n e 5, 1995
Revision received January 11, 1996
Accepted January 30, 1996 •