SIS J. Proj. Psy. & Ment.

Health (2017) 24: 3-17

Thematic Apperception Techniques (TAT, CAT) in Assessment: A Summary

Review of 67 Survey-based Studies of Training and Professional Settings
Chris Piotrowski
A cursory review of the recent literature in the areas of testing and assessment tends to depict the impression that
Thematic tests have been largely eschewed in professional practice over the past 2 decades. Indeed, this class of
assessment instruments has been the target of extensive criticism based on incisive reviews of the literature (e.g.,
Lilienfeld et al., 2000). The intent of the current study is to determine whether this collective movement, evident in
the scholarly literature since 1990, against Thematic assessment, has had a deleterious impact on the popularity
of these tests in graduate training programs and professional usage worldwide. To that end, the author identified,
through an extensive literature review, published survey research with regard to Thematic instruments that
reported on assessment training and test usage patterns from 1989-2017. The 67 identified survey-based or
records-based studies served as the data pool in the current review (Training=16; Practice=51 settings). The
summary analysis indicated that 43 of the 67 studies (64%) reported that Thematic tests have been relied upon in
assessment training or practice to at least a „moderate‟ degree. This trend was particularly evident in 9 of the 16
surveys (56%) of graduate-level and internship training. However, only 20% (n=10) of the practice-based studies
reported a high level (top 10 ranking) of usage of Thematic techniques. Most of the 67 studies found infrequent
use of children‟s Thematic tests (e.g., CAT). This review revealed that, over the years, Thematic techniques have
been favored by clinical psychologists and professional counselors, but rather neglected in forensic and
neuropsychological assessment. Also, a dramatic decline in usage of both the TAT and CAT was noted in most
samples of school psychologists. Noteworthy, several studies found that coursework and training emphasis with
the TAT was rather cursory and unstructured. On a cautionary note, this review observed a slight diminutive trend
in Thematic methods in both training and practice since 2008. Thus, the future status of Thematic tests in the
assessment armamentarium appears precarious, particularly as competing assessment approaches and novel
testing instruments emerge in the field. Finally, there is a need for additional research regarding the scope of
Thematic assessment in training programs in countries outside the USA (Piotrowski, 2015b), due to the dearth of
studies of academic settings overseas.

Over the past 75 years, Thematic methods,
within the family of projective tests, have been
popular assessment tools (Dana, 1996;
Dupree &Prevatt, 2003; Frank, 1948; Handler
& Hilsenroth, 1998; Handler & Smith, 2013;
Keddy & Piotrowski, 1992; Klopfer & Taulbee,
1976; McGrath & Carroll, 2012; Murstein,
1965; Piotrowski, 2015a; Piotrowski & Keller,
1989, 1992; Wade & Baker, 1977). Despite
their status in the testing community,
projective tests have generated much
scholarly criticism by clinicians and
academicians over the years, even during the
zenith of their popularity (e.g., Butcher, 2006;
Fisher, 1967; Ivnik, 1977; Keiser & Prather,
1990; Retzlaff, 1992; Reynolds, 1979;
Swensen, 1968; Vukovich, 1983). Since this
onslaught of academic critique has been
particularly contentious over the past 25 years
(see Garb et al., 2002; Lilienfeld et al., 2015;
Meyer et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2002), the
aim of the current study is to review the extant
literature, since 1989, on assessment usage
of the most popular thematic tests (i.e., the
TAT and CAT) in both academic training and
applied practice settings. Other Thematic
instruments, like the Roberts Apperception
Test, Make-A-Picture-Story-Test, and the
Children‟s Apperceptive Story-Telling Test
(Schneider &Perney, 1990) have a limited
research base and, thus, are not included in
this analysis.
Proponents of projective assessment contend
that Thematic tests provide rich idiographic
material not only clinically but also as a robust
source of research data in scholarly
investigations (e.g., Basu, 2014; Blatt, 1975).
In support of this view, Dana (1996, p. 203)
concluded “The TAT continues to be used in
assessment practice because of the potential
richness of the protocol data for personality
study.” Moreover, Thematic approaches
seem particularly amenable in the
assessment of children (e.g., Chandler, 2003).
More recently, Weiner and Greene (2008)

Chris Piotrowski, Ph.D. University of West Florida (USA) Email: cpiotrowski@uwf.edu

Keywords: TAT, CAT in Assessment.
 4:Chris Piotrowski
argue that Thematic techniques can serve as
a prodigious precursory tool in screening for
psychological disturbance or maladjustment.
Critics, like Ziskin (1995, pp. 866-870),
counter that “The TAT is an extremely difficult
technique to evaluate empirically.”
Scholarly research on Thematic tests,
particularly the TAT, has been rather robust
over the years. A keyword search (March
2016) of the database PsycINFO produced
930 article references and 200 dissertations.
In an analysis on the prevalence of projective
techniques in published research reported in
key journals from 1947-1965, Crenshaw et al.
(1968) found the TAT to be ranked 2nd in
terms of investigatory interest over time, and
even surpassed the Rorschach in the 1960-
1964 period.
Historical Context:
Graduate-level Training Settings:
From an historical perspective (i.e., prior to
1990), attitudes of mental health practitioners
toward Thematic techniques remained quite
positive; however, views of clinical faculty and
internship directors toward some projective
tests, while positive, have become more tepid
over time (see Kolbe, 1985; Piotrowski 1999,
2015b for review; Rossini & Moretti, 1997).
Early surveys, such as McCully (1965),
reported rather positive attitudes of internship
directors regarding the TAT, with 94% of
respondents considering Thematic techniques
as somewhat or very important. In a survey of
academic clinical psychologists in APA-
approved clinical training programs, Thelen et
al. (1968) found that Thematic tests were
considered the most important of the
projective techniques to master, with 71 of
respondents confirming that coverage of the
TAT should be required coursework. About
this time, Shemberg and Keeley (1970)
detected a slight decrease in training in
projective techniques in PhD clinical training
programs. However, very positive attitudes
toward diagnostic testing was reported by
internship directors (Garfield & Kurtz, 1973);
in fact, 93% of internship centers emphasized
the TAT. During the 1980s, where attitudes of
academic faculty and internship directors
toward projective tests were somewhat
tempered, the TAT was still endorsed as
important by 74% of academic clinical
psychologists (Pruitt et al., 1985). Moreover,
the TAT continued to be emphasized during
internship training (see Durand et al., 1988).
These positive attitudes on the part of faculty
toward Thematic assessment reflected the
importance attributed to diagnostic training at
clinical practicum sites (see Craig & Horowitz,
1990). In support of these findings, in a
national survey of practicing clinical
psychologists, Wade and Baker (1977) found
that nearly 30% recommended that clinical
students learn the TAT. It must be noted,
however, that, during this time, the CAT was
not emphasized in clinical training (e.g.,
Piotrowski & Keller, 1984).
Mental Health Practice Settings:
Early national surveys on clinical test usage in
practice settings found the TAT ranked 4th
and the CAT in 38thplace (Sundberg, 1961).
Hinkle et al. (1968), on data from 247
psychotherapists, found the TAT to be
amongst the top tests used in private practice.
In a nationwide survey of clinical agencies,
Lubin et al. (1971) reported that the TAT
ranked 7th and the CAT 14th. Gendreau
(1975), in a study on psychological test usage
in corrections in Canada, reported the TAT
ranked 9th. Surveys of mental health
practitioners in the 1970s corroborated the
popularity of Thematic instruments with the
TAT and CAT amongst the top 10 and top 15
tests, respectfully (see Brown & McGuire,
1976; Piotrowski & Keller, 1978). Emphasis in
practice with Thematic approaches continued
into the 1980s (Fee, Elkins, & Boyd, 1982;
Harrison et al., 1988; Haynes & Peltier, 1983;
Lubin, Larsen, &Matarazzo, 1984; Sweeney,
Clarkin, &Fitzgiggon, 1987; Tuma& Pratt,
1982; Watkins et al., 1988). In fact, one
survey found that 91% and 23% of
practitioners recommended competency in the
TAT and CAT, respectfully (Piotrowski, 1985).
Quite revealing, surveys of practicing school
psychologists (i.e., Goh et al., 1981) reported
that both the TAT and CAT were frequently

used in the assessment of personality. Even
clinicians with an anathema to projective
techniques, such as behavior therapists, have
been reported to rely on the TAT (Piotrowski
& Keller, 1984). Interestingly, this popularity of
the TAT was also evident overseas. Evers
and Zaal (1982) reported that the TAT ranked
4th in test usage in The Netherlands. Based
on test usage data from 383 Australian
psychologists, Sharpley and Pain (1988)
found the TAT to be the 8th „most valued‟ test
and highly recommended for inclusion in
graduate-level training.
Rationale for Current Study:
Since the early 1990s, the assessment
community has witnessed a steady stream of
rather disparaging commentary directed
largely on the lack of psychometric credibility
of individual projective methods, including
Thematic techniques (see Lilienfeld et al.,
2000; Smith & Dumont, 1995; Ziskin, 1995).
Thus, based on this dramatic shift
(commencing around 25 years ago) to
expunge projective techniques from both
training emphasis and clinical practice, it
would be of interest to a) summarize survey
data regarding coursework and training
emphasis in Thematic tests in
professional/graduate training programs since
1989, and b) examine the extent of
professional usage of Thematic techniques in
applied practice settings during this time
frame.
Investigatory Design:
In order to appreciate historical trends on the
scope of emphasis and usage of Thematic
techniques in graduate-level training and
practice/professional settings, the author
utilized bibliometric analyses of the extant
literature to identify survey-based studies. To
that end, a systematic search of the database
PsycINFO (published by the American
Psychological Association) was conducted, as
this research repository is considered the
leading scholarly file of research in the social
and behavioral sciences worldwide. Table 1
summarizes survey findings of both academic
and applied settings on emphasis and usage
TAT & CAT: 5
of Thematic tests since 1989. This analysis
includes the 67 published studies on test
usage that were identified in journal
publications, based on academic/training and
clinician/practitioner samples worldwide.
Findings:
First, response-rates of the reviewed studies
varied widely; thus, the conclusions of the
current analysis findings must be tempered by
the unknown views of a sizeable percentage
of non-responders from the samples under
study. Thus, with a cautionary stance, the
current analysis showed that, overall, based
on data from both academic and practice
settings over the past 25 years, the TAT has
been emphasized or used to at least a
„moderate‟ degree in 43 of the 67 (64%)
studies in this review. This popularity was
more apparent in training or internship
settings, where the TAT was found to be
highly valued in coverage in 9 of the 16
studies (56%) compared to only 11 of the 51
studies (22%) of practitioners. In fact, 21 of
the 51 studies (41%) of practice settings
indicated sparse usage of the TAT. However,
„moderate‟ levels of TAT use were noted in
38% of the studies involving practitioners.
With regard to the Children‟s Apperception
Test (CAT), reliance on the CAT was rather
absent across all academic and practice
settings. Many studies that found the TAT to
be popular also reported sparse usage or
emphasis on the CAT. This disuse of the CAT
was even evident in surveys of child
practitioners and school psychologists.
Moreover, only a couple studies found
moderate use of the Roberts Apperception
Test. Interestingly, scant discussion on the
neglect of children‟s Thematic tests was
proffered by investigators in the literature
reported in the current analysis.
In addition, this extensive review revealed that
there has been a slight decline in enthusiasm
for Thematic instruments by both graduate
faculty and practitioners in recent years (see
Peterson et al., 2014; Ready &Veague, 2014;
Stedman et al., 2017). Moreover, the latest
evidence (Mihura et al., 2016; Wright et al.,
 6:Chris Piotrowski

2016) points to the fact that although there from mentors. Noteworthy, there is a dearth of
continues to be some reliance on data on the status of Thematic techniques in
performance-based testing, interest in graduate-level educational or training
Thematic tests appears to be waning (see programs in countries outside the USA (see
Rabin et al., 2016; Ready et al., 2016). Piotrowski, 2015b for review). Future research
needs to examine didactic issues and identify
Several other trends in practice or applied
trends regarding assessment training, over
settings were noted. Thematic tests have
time, at universities in nations worldwide (see
been popular with clinical psychologists and
Elosua&Iliescul, 2012; Raez de Ramirez,
professional counselors (e.g., Clark, 1995),
1999).
but less so with forensic psychologists (Neal
&Grisso, 2014), and largely neglected by Conclusion:
neuropsychologists (see Rabin et al., 2005;
These findings, based on extensive survey
Smith, 2010). In fact, studies regarding
data over time, point to the reality that a
forensic mental health assessment, including
sizeable minority of faculty and mental health
survey data from outside the USA (Martin et
professionals have relied on Thematic
al., 2001), indicate that projective tests are not
assessment and have done so based largely
relied upon by practitioners in most legal
on several key attributes of these techniques
settings (McLauglin&Kan, 2014; Ryba et al.,
discussed in the assessment literature:
2003). Furthermore, Thematic tests have,
notably, that Thematic techniques tend to be
historically, had a central role in the
conducive in diagnostic assessment (Dana,
assessment practices of school psychologists
1996; Woolford et al., 2015; Wright et al.,
(e.g., Hughes et al., 2010; Hutton, 1992;
2016), particularly in understanding and
Kennedy et al., 1994); however, recent
addressing stressors, social-emotional needs,
surveys in the school psychology field indicate
and interpersonal challenges. In this context,
a slight de-emphasis on reliance of these
Thematic methods may offer an integrative
evaluation tools, with the CAT showing the
function within the multi-method assessment
most decline in usage (e.g., Hojnoski et al.,
model (Flanagan & Motta, 2007; Hopwood &
2006; Shapiro &Heick, 2004).
Bornstein, 2014; Riccio& Rodriguez, 2007).
Despite the popularity and emphasis with the However, based on recent evidence (since
TAT in academic training settings prior to 2008), there appears to be a diminution of
2008, empirically-based studies have found didactic and practicum offerings in academic
that TAT training in graduate education has and internship programs in projective
been rather cursory and unstructured (Duffy, techniques; hence, the future status of the
1993). It must be noted that in the recent TAT in the assessment armamentarium
Mihura et al. (2016) study, survey objectives appears precarious.
failed to elucidate the extent or depth of
Historically, the current findings regarding
training in specific assessment approaches or
Thematic tests attest to the popularity of and
tests. Moreover, academic coverage in clinical
interest in projective assessment over the
training with the TAT appears to be rather
decades, as evidenced in coverage in
restricted to the seminal models proposed by
scholarly books on psychological tests (e.g.,
Bellak and Murray (see Rossini & Moretti,
Aronow, Weiss, &Reznikoff, 2013; Groth-
1997) and recent data point to a lack of
Marnat, 2009; Harwood, Beutler, &Groth-
instructional emphasis on TAT scoring
Marnat, 2011; Murstein, 1965; Newmark,
protocols (see Mihura et al., 2016). The
1996; Rabin, 1986; Rapaport et al., 1968).
impact of this de-emphasis on future trends is
This scholarship reflects the vast research
uncertain. Hence, interested students may
landscape on projective techniques evident in
need to pursue educational opportunities with
the extant literature. However, future studies
Thematic tests via nontraditional venues such
are needed to determine whether interest in
as workshops and individualized instruction
 TAT & CAT:7

Thematic methods will expand beyond a competing assessment approaches and

narrow circle of enthusiasts, particularly as testing instruments emerge in the field.
Table 1: Emphasis or Use of Thematic Tests in Training/Practice Settings across 67 Studies
(1989-2017)
Study Country Sample Findings
Piotrowski & USA Test usage in 413 mental Amongst the top 30 tests used, the TAT
th th
Keller (1989) health facilities ranked 9 ; the CAT 14 .
th
Tsoi&Sundber Hong Kong Division of Clinical The TAT ranked 4 .
g (1989) Psychology of the Hong
Kong Psychological Society
th
Bubenzer et USA 743 members of the The TAT ranked 7 in terms of usage
al. (1990) American Association for but used only occasionally.
Counseling & Development,
primarily practitioners
*Watkins et al. USA Data based on 56 directors 45% of these programs emphasized the
(1990) of counseling psychology TAT in coursework/training.
training programs
Archer et al. USA 165 respondents who were The TAT ranked very highly for inclusion
(1991) either APA Division 12 in a „Standard‟ test battery, endorsed by
members, Society for 63% of respondents.
Personality Assessment
members, and/or
practitioners with a research
interest in adolescent
assessment
Butler et al. USA 280 members of the 33% of respondents in neuropsychology
(1991) International use the TAT for „personality‟
Neuropsychological Society assessment.
Ogawa & Japan Japanese Clinical Although several projective tests were
Piotrowski psychologists ranked highly, the TAT was not used
(1992) frequently.
Hutton (1992) USA 389 school psychologists For the area of personality assessment,
(members of NASP); update the Roberts Apperception Test ranked
th
on the Goh et al. (1981) #2; the CAT #3; the TAT 12 .
study

*Piotrowski USA A replication of the 80% of the programs suggested

&Zalewski Piotrowski & Keller (1984) competency in the TAT; this was on par
(1993) study; 80 Directors of both (85%) with findings of the 1984 survey.
PhD and PsyD APA clinical Only 10% of programs endorsed the
psychology programs in CAT.
1991
Pinkerman et USA Surveyed 126 psychologists Projective tests were used frequently,
al. (1993) in 37 juvenile/family courts including the TAT.
on scope of testing practices
of children under age 18
Kennedy et al. USA Practicing school Overall, projective tests used frequently;
(1994) psychologists TAT ranked #9; CAT #12.
Stinnett et al. USA Data analysis based on 123 In social-emotional assessment, 29%
th
(1994) members of the National use the TAT (ranked 11 ); 15% use the
th
Association of School CAT (ranked 19 ).
Psychologists (NASP) in
1993
th
Chan & Lee Hong Kong 50 practicing psychologists 56% noted the TAT, ranked 12 ; 38%
8:Chris Piotrowski

th
(1995) in 1993 used the CAT, ranked 18 .
Watkins et al. USA 412 APA members who TAT used by 82% of practicing
th
(1995) were clinical psychologists psychologists & ranked 5 overall; the
th
CAT was used by 42% (ranked 16 );
90% felt that clinical students should
gain competency in the TAT; however,
only 22% endorsed the CAT in training
& only 6% recommended competency in
the Roberts Apperception Test.
Borum&Grisso USA 102 forensic For psychologists, the TAT was relied
(1995) psychologists/psychiatrists upon by only 8% of respondents; for
psychiatrists, 10%; CAT not mentioned.
*Wilson USA Data, obtained in 1992, on For the practitioner sample, Thematic
&Reschly assessment practices from tests were not amongst the top 10
(1996) 251 members of the National instruments; for faculty, the TAT was
Association of School covered by 35% in coursework and by
Psychologists (NASP); and 54% in supervised training.
faculty in school psychology
programs
Lees-Haley et USA Forensic evaluation reports Only 6% of „neuropsychology‟ reports
al. (1996) by 100 forensic included use of TAT (ranked #39 test);
neuropsychology experts CAT not listed.
*Rossini & USA 50 Directors of APA- 30 of these programs provided
Moretti (1997) accredited clinical coverage of the TAT in graduate-level
psychology training courses; Interpretations of TAT
programs shared their views protocols by students were infrequently
on coursework/coverage of required; only about 15 programs
the TAT offered practicum experiences with the
TAT; surprisingly, book chapters on the
TAT and journal articles were rarely
required readings; thus, instruction on
the TAT was found to be unstructured.
*Culross& USA Surveyed 63 instructors The TAT and CAT were taught in 71%
Nelson (1997) listed in NASP-approved and 52% of personality assessment
graduate programs in school courses, respectively.
psychology on tests
emphasized in personality
assessment coursework
Ackermann & USA Practitioners in court-related In a re-analysis of the findings, Hagen
Ackermann custody evaluations &Castagna (2001) found that the TAT
(1997) was used in 16% of assessment reports
of parents; The CAT was used in 17%
of evaluations of children, the Roberts
Apperception Test in 7%.
Frauenhoffer USA Surveyed 487 mental health For psychologists, 50% used the TAT
et al. (1998) practitioners (psychologists, and 26% the CAT; however, thematic
counselors, social workers) tests were not popular with either social
workers nor professional counselors.
Piotrowski et USA 137 practitioners in National Tests considered most important to
al. (1998) Register of Health Service practice: only 15% of psych.
providers in Psychology practitioners noted the TAT; CAT not
recommended.
Muniz et al. Spain, Test use by practicing Overall, projective methods were quite
th
(1999) Portugal, & psychologists popular; The TAT was ranked 10 , but
Latin more emphasized in Argentina than in
 TAT & CAT:9

America Spain.
Boccaccini& USA Diagnostic test usage in Although only 9% used the TAT, 67% of
Brodsky personal injury cases by 80 respondents endorsed the TAT due to
(1999) practicing forensic „acceptance within the field‟; 50% based
psychologists on „research support‟.
*Piotrowski & USA Extent of graduate-level 76% of these internship sites provided
Belter (1999) assessment curriculum was training on TAT; 23% on the Roberts
reported by training directors Apperception Test; however, only 10%
from 84 APA-approved of these directors considered the TAT
internship settings essential for practice.
Camara et al. USA 179 practitioners, mostly Neuropsychologists shunned thematic
(2000) clinical psychologists tests; but clinical psychologists valued
th
regarding test usage the TAT (ranked 6 ) and, to a lesser
th
degree, the CAT (16 ).
Archer & USA 346 psychologists, working The TAT (ranked #4) was used by 63%
Newsom with adolescents of respondents; Roberts Apperception
(2000) Test used by 40% (ranked #19);
Interestingly, CAT not listed amongst
top 30 test.
*Stedman et USA 324 internship directors Directors had favorable attitudes for the
al. (2000) across a variety of mental TAT and picture-story tests to be
health settings included in „integrated‟ assessment.
Boothby & USA Correctional (prison) Thematic tests were not amongst the
Clements psychologists top 20 assessment instruments.
(2000)
*Clemence& USA Surveyed 382 internship Internship directors supported graduate-
Handler (2001) settings on use and training level preparation in projective
of psychological tests assessment; 56% recommended
competency and inclusion for the TAT in
„Testing battery‟.
Muniz et al. European 3,455 professional In 5 of the 6 countries, projective tests
(2001) (Spain, UK, psychologists use of were not popular; in Belgium, the TAT
Holland, psychological tests and CAT were noted by 16%, and 10%
Slovenia, of professionals.
Croatia,
Belgium)
Luiselli et al. USA Assessment for autism 27% of service centers use the TAT in
(2001) reported by 100 practitioners the treatment of autism.
in national service centers
for developmental disabilities
in 30 states
*Belter & USA Survey data on 82 directors Nearly 60% of the programs required a
Piotrowski of APA-approved doctoral specific course on projective testing;
(2001) clinical/professional The TAT was amongst the most
psychology training emphasized (by 70% of directors).
programs on assessment
curriculum
*Childs &Eyde USA Course syllabi data, from 84 71% of programs indicated that the TAT
(2002) APA clinical psychology should be a key component in the
programs, determined assessment curriculum.
coverage of projective
assessment techniques
Cashel (2002) USA 162 child & adolescent 56% of respondents use the TAT
th
practitioners in outpatient, (ranked 19 ) to some degree; 48% use
10:Chris Piotrowski

hospital and school settings
*Stedman et USA Based on survey data from
al. (2002) 334 psychology interns,
determined extent of pre-
internship assessment report
writing experiences
Bow et al. USA 84 psychologists reported on
(2002) assessment practices
regarding sexual abuse in
child custody cases
Demaray et al. USA Surveyed over 316 school
(2003) psychologists on
assessment practices in
ADHD
Lally (2003) USA 64 Diplomate-status forensic
psychologists, test use in
court-related evaluations
the CAT; 34% use the Roberts
Apperception Test.
Results showed that clinical students
met or exceeded most expectations of
internship training directors by
producing a median of 18 integrated
testing reports; however, reports
including the TAT were a few (M=1.5).
The TAT was used in 15% of
assessments of accusing parents and
alleged perpetrators.
Although 30% supported projective
assessment, less than 5% noted the
CAT, TAT, or Roberts test.
TAT was deemed „unacceptable‟ by
77% of sample across several forensic
domains.

Ryba et al. USA Psychologists‟ test usage in Projective tests were infrequently
(2003) juvenile competency to stand employed; only 12% reported using the
trial evaluations TAT.
Shapiro USA Determined assessment The TAT was used occasionally across
&Heick (2004) practices of 648 school recent cases involving psychological
psychologists (NASP assessment issues.
members)
Echemendia& USA Test use practices of 911 No Projective techniques were amongst
Harris (2004) neuropsychologists top tests used.
Anderson USA Diagnostic assessment Although 75% of the respondents rely
&Paulosky practices of 95 „eating on self-report measures, only 10% use
(2004) disorder‟ specialists any projective techniques.
Rabin et al. USA/ Assessment practices of 747 Only the Rorschach was amongst the
(2005) Canada clinical neuropsychologists top 40 tests in neuropsychological
assessment.
de Oliveira et Brazil 35 professional CAT-Human, used by 57%, ranked #1;
al. (2005) psychologists TAT infrequently emphasized.
Hojnoski et al. USA 170 school psychologists TAT used by 31% of respondents,
(2006) reported use of projective mostly for diagnostic purposes &
tests treatment planning; 16% use the CAT.
Archer et al. USA 152 forensic psychologists‟ 54% of respondents (n=54) use the TAT
(2006) use of projective techniques at least „occasionally‟ in forensic
in court-related assessments evaluations of adults; The CAT was not
popular in child forensic assessment.
Koonce (2007) USA 246 NASP members were For direction for selection of ADHD test
surveyed on selection of battery, none of the „thematic‟ tests
tests in ADHD assessment were used.
Herzberg Brazil Clinical psychology faculty TAT ranked #1, used by 73% of faculty;
&Mattar (2008) use of projective tests in the CAT-Human figures by 15%.
practice, University of Sao
Paulo
Madaus et al. USA Assessment practices Apparently, projective techniques are
(2009) reported by 164 „special not used in the assessment of social-
 TAT & CAT:11

education‟ directors in school emotional behavior in „special

districts in 5 northeastern education‟ milieu.
states
Ogawa et al. Japan 237 Japanese psychologists TAT not listed in the top 20 tests used in
(2010) in practice Japan in 2010; in the prior 2004 survey,
TAT used only by 8% of sample.
Smith et al. USA 404 members of the The TAT was occasionally used by
(2010) International about 30% of the sample in personality
Neuropsychological Society assessment, but not highly ranked.
or National Academy of
Neuropsychology surveyed
on personality assessment
practices
Donoso et al. USA 150 professionals who Overall, projective techniques were
(2010) conduct vocational relied upon infrequently; TAT was used
rehabilitation evaluations by 28% of respondents, ranked #18.
Raez (2011) Peru University psychologists in 92% of the sample use projective
Lima, and members of the techniques; 43% rely on TAT; 41% on
Peru Society of Rorschach & CAT.
Projective Methods
Ackermann USA 213 forensic psychologists 29% of the sample use the TAT in
&Pritzl (2011) surveyed on tests used with assessment of parents.
parents in child custody
evaluations
Evers et al. 17 Study conducted in 2009; Projective tests were not ranked highly
(2012) European sample included 12,606 in 6 countries (Netherlands, Norway,
countries professional psychologists Sweden, UK, Croatia, Germany).
regarding testing practices; Turkey was the only European country
data analysis based on 400 with TAT usage, but rather infrequently,
respondents 7%.
*Neukrug et al. USA Based on survey data from 93% of instructors report teaching
(2013) 210 counselor educators emphasis with the TAT, which was
th
across the U.S., this study ranked 12 .
examined graduate-level
coverage of assessment
instruments by instructors
Peterson et al. USA 926 counselors (clinical Amongst a copious set of testing
(2014) mental health, school, instruments, the TAT seems to be used
th
occupational) rated tests of moderately (ranked 40 ); the CAT
th
all types regarding usage occasionally (ranked 70 ).
Neal &Grisso International 434 forensic examiners of Across a variety of forensic/legal
(2014) sample: professional organizations domains, a myriad of testing
USA (45%), instruments was used; however, the
Canada only projective test noted was the
(7%), Rorschach.
Europe
(3%),
Australia-
New
Zealand
(4%)
*Ready USA Compared training in Although the response-rate was rather
&Veague psychological assessment low (33%), no projective tests ranked in
(2014) across 3 training models the top 10; only practitioner-scholar
(Clinical-Science, Scientist- programs offer limited coverage on
 12:Chris Piotrowski

Practitioner, Practitioner- projective techniques; younger faculty

Scholar) in APA-Accredited express little interest or competency in
programs teaching specific projective techniques.
Sotelo- USA Cognitive assessment A variety of IQ, achievement tests, and
Dynega& practices of 323 school educational measures were popular; no
Dixon (2014) psychologists projective tests were noted.
Wechsler et al. Iberian/Latin Test development & usage Projective tests very popular in
(2014) -American in Portugal, Spain, Venezuela; Rorschach somewhat
countries Argentina, Venezuela, and popular in Brazil and Argentina; Spain
Brazil and Portugal indicated low usage of
projective tests. Thematic tests are not
amongst the top tests used by
practitioners in any of these countries.
Rabin et al. USA & Testing practices of 512 Among Top tests for „personality
th
(2016) Canada neuropsychologists; assessment‟; TAT ranked 14 , but used
members of INS and NAN infrequently (1%).
*Ready et al. USA & Views of Directors of Overall, the majority of directors
(2016) Canada internship settings on pre- indicated that professional academic
internship preparation in programs do not adequately prepare
assessment; Data based on students for assessment activities on
236 APPIC sites internship; 28% of sites offer training in
the TAT.
Wright et al. USA 279 members of APA in 49% indicated use of projective
(2016) practice, with an interest in techniques other than the Rorschach
Assessment; Data based on (TAT data not specifically reported);
low response rate (17%) 54% use the Rorschach.
*Mihura et al. USA Of 244 APA-accredited The survey, in a general fashion,
(2016) doctoral clinical psychology inquired about „coverage‟ in assessment
programs, 83 usable surveys courses and practicum;
were analyzed authors concluded that instruction
emphasized “breadth at the expense of
depth”; TAT „covered‟ in 63% of
programs; only 8 programs (15%)
taught formal coding for the TAT.
*Stedman et USA APPIC internship programs 72% of programs (adult focused) desire
al. (2017) reported on „Assessment‟ pre-internship training in assessment; in
training offered and on pre- mixed-programs (adults/children), 35%
internship expectations of offer training in „Story‟ techniques.
testing competency

Note. Studies (n=16) marked with asterisk (*) focused on graduate/internship training.

References:
Ackerman, M.J., & Ackerman, M.C. (1997). Custody
evaluation practices: A survey of experienced
professionals. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 28, 137-145.
Ackerman, M.J., &Pritzl, T.B. (2011). Child custody
evaluation practices: A 20-year follow-up. Family
Court Review, 49(3), 618-628.
Anderson, D.A., &Paulosky, C.A. (2004). A survey of the
use of assessment instruments by eating disorder
professionals in clinical practice. Eating & Weight
Disorders, 9(3), 238-241.
Anderson, T.K., Cancelli, A., &Kratochwill, T.R. (1984).
Self-reported assessment practices of school
psychologists: Implications for training and
practice. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 17-
29.
Archer, R.P., Buffington-Vollum, J.K., Stredny, R.V., &
Handel, R.W. (2006). A survey of psychological
test use patterns among forensic psychologists.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84-94.
Archer, R.P., Maruish, M., Imhof, E.A., & Piotrowski, C.
(1991). Psychological test usage with adolescent

clients: 1990 survey findings. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 22, 247-252.
Archer, R.P., & Newsom, C.R. (2000). Psychological test
usage with adolescent clients: Survey update.
Assessment, 7(3), 227-235.
Aronow, E., Weiss, K.A., &Reznikoff, M. (2013). A
practical guide to the Thematic Apperception
Test: The TAT in clinical practice. New York:
Bruner-Routledge.
Bartram, D., & Coyne, I. (1998). Variations in national
patterns of testing and test use: The ITC/EFPA
international survey. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 249-260.
Basu, J. (2014). Psychologists‟ ambivalence toward
ambiguity: Relocating the projective test debate
for multiple interpretative hypotheses. SIS
Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental
Health, 21, 25-36.
Belter, R.W., & Piotrowski, C. (2001).Current status of
doctoral-level training in psychological
testing.Jour. of Clin. Psych., 57, 717-726.
Belter, R.W., Piotrowski, C. (1999). Current status of
master‟s-level training in psychological
assessment. Journal of Psychological Practice,
5(1), 1-5.
Beutler, L.E., Williams, R.E., Wakefield, P.J., &Entwistle,
S.R. (1995).Bridging scientist and practitioner
perspectives in clinical psychology. American
Psychologist, 50, 984-994.
Blatt, S.J. (1975). The validity of projective techniques
and their research and clinical contribution.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 327-343.
Boccaccini, M.T., & Brodsky, S.L. (1999).Diagnostic test
usage by forensic psychologists in emotional
injury cases. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 30, 253-259.
Boothby, J.L., & Clements, C.B. (2000).A national survey
of correctional psychologists. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 27, 716-732.
Borum, R., &Grisso, T. (1995).Psychological test use in
criminal forensic evaluations. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 465-473.
Bow, J.N., Quinnell, F.A., Zaroff, M., &Assemany, A.
(2002).Assessment of sexual abuse allegations in
child custody cases. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 33, 566-575.
Brown, W.R., & McGuire, J.M. (1976). Current
psychological assessment practices. Professional
Psychology, 7, 475-484.
Bubenzer, D.L., Zimpfer, D.G., &Mahrle, C.L.
(1990).Standardized individual appraisal in
agency and private practice: A survey. Journal of
Mental Health Counseling, 12, 51-66.
Butcher, J.N. (2006). Assessment in clinical psychology:
A perspective on the past, present challenges,
and future prospects. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 13(3), 205-209.
Butler, M., Retzlaff, P., &Vanderploeg, R.
(1991).Neuropsychological test usage.
TAT & CAT: 13
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
22(6), 510-512.
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.
Cashel, M.L. (2002). Child and adolescent psychological
assessment: Current clinical practices and the
impact of managed care. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(5), 446-
453.
Chan, D.W., & Lee, H.B. (1995).Patterns of psychological
test usage in Hong Kong in 1993. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 292-297.
Chandler, L.A. (2003). The projective hypothesis and the
development of projective techniques for children.
In C.R. Reynolds & R.W. Kamphaus (Eds.),
Handbook of psychological and educational
assessment of children: Personality, behavior,
and context (2nd ed., pp. 51-65). New York:
Guilford Press.
Childs, R., &Eyde, L. (2002). Assessment training in
clinical psychology doctoral programs: What
should we teach? What do we teach? Journal of
Personality Assessment, 78, 130-144.
Clark, A.J. (1995). Projective techniques in the counseling
process. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 73(3), 311-316.
Clemence, A., & Handler, L. (2001). Psychological
assessment on internship: A survey of training
directors and their expectations for students.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 18-47.
Craig, R.J., & Horowitz, M. (1990).Current utilization of
psychological tests at diagnostic practicum
sites.The Clini.Psychst, 43, 29-36.
Crenshaw, D.A., Bohn, S., Hoffman, M.R., Matheus, J.M.,
& Offenbach, S.G. (1968). The use of projective
methods in research: 1947-1965. Journal of
Projective Techniques & Personality Assessment,
32(1), 3-9.
Culross, R.R., & Nelson, S. (1997). Training in personality
assessment in specialist-level school psychology
programs. Psychological Reports, 81, 119-124.
Dana, R.H. (1996). The Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT). In C.S. Newmark (Ed.), Major
psychological assessment instruments (2nd ed.,
pp. 166-205). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Demaray, M.K., Schaefer, K., & Delong, L.K. (2003).
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A
national survey of training and current
assessment practices in the schools. Psychology
in the Schools, 40(6), 583-597.
de Oliveira, K.L., Noronha, A.P., Dantas, M.A., &
Santarem, E.M. (2005). The use of psychological
techniques and instruments for behavioral
psychologists.PsicologiaemEstido, Maringa,
10(1), 127-135.
Donoso, O.A., Hernandez, B., &Horin, E.V. (2010).Use of
psychological tests within vocational
rehabilitation. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 32, 191-200.
 14:Chris Piotrowski
Duffy, J.N. (1993). Utility of the Thematic Apperception
Test as an aid to personality
assessment.Dissertation Abstracts International,
54, 1711.
Dupree, J.L., &Prevatt, F. (2003).Projective storytelling
techniques. In C.R. Reynolds & R.W. Kamphaus
(Eds.), Handbook of psychological and
educational assessment of children: Personality,
behavior, and context (2nd ed., pp. 66-90). NY:
Guilford Press.
Durand, V., Blanchard, E., & Mindell, J. (1988). Training
in projective testing: Survey of clinical training
directors and internship directors. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 236-238.
Echemendia, R.J., & Harris, J.G. (2004).
Neuropsychological test use with Hispanic/Latino
populations in the U.S.: Part II of a national
survey. Applied Neuropsychology, 11, 4-12.
Elosua, P., & Iliescu, D. (2012). Tests in Europe: Where
we are and where we should go. International
Journal of Testing, 12, 157-175.
Evers, A., Muniz, J., Bartram, D., et al. (2012). Testing
practices in the 21st century: Developments and
European psychologists‟ opinions. European
Psychologist, 17(4), 300-319.
Evers, A., &Zaal, J.N. (1982).Trends in test use in The
Netherlands. International Review of Applied
Psychology, 31, 35-53.
Fee, A.F., Elkins, G.R., & Boyd, L. (1982). Testing and
counseling psychologists: Current practices and
implications for training. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 46, 116-118.
Fisher, S. (1967). Projective methodologies. Annual
Review of Psychology, 18, 165-191.
Flanagan, R., & Motta, R.W. (2007). Figure drawings: A
popular method. Psychology in the Schools,
44(3), 257-270.
Frank, L. (1948). Projective methods. Springfield, IL: C.C.
Thomas.
Frauenhoffer, D., Ross, M.J., Gfeller, J., Searight, H.R., &
Piotrowski, C. (1998). Psychological test usage
among licensed mental health practitioners: A
multidisciplinary survey. Journal of Psychological
Practice, 4, 28-33.
Garb, H.N., Wood, J.M., Lilienfeld, S.O., &Nezworski,
M.T. (2002). Effective use of projective
techniques in clinical practice: Let the data help
with selection and interpretation. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 454-463.
Garfield, S.L., & Kurtz, R.M. (1973). Attitudes toward
training in diagnostic testing: A survey of directors
of internship training. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 40, 350-355.
Gendreau, P. (1975). Psychological test usage in
corrections. Canadian Journal of Criminology and
Corrections, 17(3), 215-220.
Goh, D.S., Teslow, C.J., & Fuller, G.B. (1981).The
practice of psychological assessment among
school psychologists. Professional Psychology,
12, 696-706.
Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of personality
assessment (5thed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hagen, M.A., &Castagna, N. (2001). The real numbers:
Psychological testing in custody evaluations.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
32, 269-271.
Handler, L., &Hilsenroth, M. (Eds.).(1998). Teaching and
learning personality assessment. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Handler, L., & Smith, J.D. (2013). Education and training
in psychology assessment. In J.R. Graham, J.A.
Naglieri, & I.B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology, Vol. 10: Assessment psychology
(2nd ed., 211-238). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Harrison, P.L., Kaufman, A.S., Hickman, J.A., & Kaufman,
N.L. (1988). A survey of tests used for adult
assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 6, 188-198.
Harwood, T.M., Beutler, L.E., &Groth-Marnat, G. (2011).
Integrative assessment of adult personality
(3rded.). New York: Guilford Press.
Haynes, J.P., & Peltier, J. (1983). Psychological
assessment practices in juvenile forensic
settings. Psychological Reports, 52, 759-762.
Herzberg, E., &Mattar, A. (2008). Clinical instruments
used in the department of clinical psychology of
USP: 10 years later. Boletim de Psicologia, 58, 1-
11.
Hinkle, J.E., Nelson, S.E., & Miller, D.
(1968).Psychological test usage by psychologist
psychotherapists in private practice.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice,
5(4), 210-213.
Hopwood, C.J., & Bornstein, R.F. (Eds.).(2014).
Multimethod clinical assessment. New York:
Guilford Press.
Hojnoski, R.L., Morrison, R., Brown, M., & Matthews, W.J.
(2006). Projective test use among school
psychologists: A survey and critique. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 145-159.
Hughes, T.L., McGoey, K.E., & Owen, P. (2010).The
importance of personality assessment in school
psychology training programs. In E. Garcia-
Vasquez, T.D. Crespi, & C.A. Riccio (Eds.),
Handbook of education, training, and supervision
of school psychologists in school and community,
Vol. 1: Foundations of professional practice (pp.
185-211). New York: Routledge.
Hutton, J.B., Dubes, R., Muir, S. (1992). Assessment
practices of school psychologists: Ten years
later. School Psychology Review, 21, 271-284.
Ivnik, R.J. (1977). Uncertain status of psychological tests
in clinical psychology. Professional Psychology,
8(2), 206-213.
Keddy, P., & Piotrowski, C. (1992).Testing in
psychotherapy practice: Literature review survey,
and commentary. Journal of Training & Practice
in Professional Psychology, 6(1), 30-39.

Keiser, R.E., & Prather, E.N. (1990). What is the TAT? A
review of ten years of research. Jr. of Personality
Assessment, 55, 800-803.
Kennedy, M.L., Faust, D., Willis, W.G., & Piotrowski, C.
(1994). Social-emotional assessment practices in
school psychology. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 12, 228-240.
Klopfer, W.G., &Taulbee, E.S. (1976).Projective tests.
Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 543-567.
Kolbe, K., Shemberg, K., & Leventhal, D.
(1985).University training in psychodiagnostics
and psychotherapy.The Clini.Psyst, 38, 59-61.
Koonce, D.A. (2007). Attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder assessment practices by practicing
school psychologists. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 25(4), 319-333.
Lally, S.J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in
forensic evaluations? A survey of experts.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
34, 491-498.
Lees-Haley, P.R., Smith, H., Williams, C.W., & Dunn, J.T.
(1996). Forensic neuropsychological test usage:
An empirical survey. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 11(1), 45-51.
Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., &Lohr, J.M. (2015). Science
and pseudoscience in clinical psychology
(2nded.). New York: Guilford Press.
Lilienfeld, S.O., Wood, J.M., & Garb, H.N. (2000).The
scientific status of projective techniques.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2),
27-66.
Lubin, B., Larsen, R.M., &Matarazzo, J.D. (1984),
Patterns of psychological test usage in the United
States: 1935-1982. American Psychologist, 39,
451-454.
Lubin, B., Wallace & Payne (1971). Patterns of
psychological test use in the United States: 1935-
1969. Profesal. Psychology, 2, 70-74.
Luiselli, J.K., Campbell, S., Cannon, B., et al. (2001).
Assessment instruments used in the education
and treatment of persons with autism: Brief report
of a survey of national service centers. Research
in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 389-398.
Madaus, J., Rinaldi, C., Bigaj, S., &Chafouleas, S.M.
(2009). An examination of current assessment
practices in northeastern school districts.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(2), 86-
93.
Martin, M., Allan, A., & Allan, M.M. (2001).The use of
psychological tests by Australian psychologists
who do assessments for the courts. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 77-82.
McCully, R.S. (1965). Current attitudes about projective
techniques in APA-approved internship training
centers. Journal of Projective Techniques and
Personality Assessment, 29(3), 271-280.
McGrath, R.E., & Carroll, E.J. (2012).The current status
of “projective tests”. In H. Cooper et al. (Eds.),
APA handbook of research methods in
psychology, Vol. 1: Foundations, planning,
TAT & CAT:15
measures, and psychometrics (pp. 329-348).
Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
McLaughlin, J.L., &Kan, L.Y. (2014). Test usage in four
common types of forensic mental health
assessment. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 45(2), 128-135.
Meyer. G.J., Finn, S.E., Eyde, L.D, et al. (2001).
Psychological testing and psychological
assessment: A review of evidence and issues.
American Psychologist, 56(2), 128-165.
Mihura, J.L., Roy, M., &Graceffo, R.A.
(2016).Psychological assessment training in
clinical psychology doctoral programs. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 98(6), 745-754.
Miller, D.N., & Nickerson, A.B. (2007).Projective
techniques and the school-based assessment of
childhood internalizing disorders. SIS Journal of
Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 14, 48-
58.
Muniz, J., Bartram, D., Evers, A., et al. (2001). Testing
practices in European countries. European J. of
Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 201-211.
Muniz, J., Prieto, G., Almeida, L., & Bartram, D. (1999).
Test use in Spain, Portugal and Latin American
countries. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 15(2), 151-157.
Murstein, B.I. (1965). Handbook of projective techniques.
Oxford, UK: Basic Books.
Neal, T., &Grisso, T. (2014). Assessment practices and
expert judgment methods in forensic psychology
and psychiatry: An international snapshot.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1406-1421.
Neukrug, E., Peterson, C.H., Bonner, M., & Lomas, G.
(2013).A national survey of assessment
instruments taught by counselor educators.
Counselor Education & Supervision, 52, 207-219.
Newmark, C.S. (1996). Major psychological assessment
instruments (2nded.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Ogawa, T., et al. (2010). Psychological testing practices
in Japan: Comparisons between 2010, 2004, and
1986. Paper presented at the Japanese
Psychological Association meeting (for full report
contact: ogawa.toshiki.ke@u.tsukuba.ac.jp).
Ogawa, T., & Piotrowski, C. (1992). Clinical psychological
test usage in Japan: A comparative study with a
survey in the U.S.A. Tsukuba Psychological
Research, 14, 151-158.
Peterson, C.H., Lomas, G.I., Neukrug, E.S., & Bonner,
M.W. (2014). Assessment use by counselors in
the United States: Implications for policy and
practice. Journal of Counseling & Development,
92, 90-99.
Pinkerman, J.E., Haynes, J.P., & Keiser, T.
(1993).Characteristics of psychological practice in
juvenile court clinics. American Journal of
Forensic Psychology, 11(2), 3-12.
Piotrowski, C. (2016). Bender-Gestalt Test usage
worldwide: A review of 30 practice-based studies.
 16:Chris Piotrowski
SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental
Health, 23(2), 73-81.
Piotrowski, C. (2015a). Projective techniques usage
worldwide: A review of applied settings 1995-
2015. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied
Psychology, 41(3), 9-19.
Piotrowski, C. (2015b). Clinical instruction on projective
techniques in the USA: A review of academic
training settings 1995-2014. Journal of Projective
Psychology & Mental Health, 22(2), 83-92.
Piotrowski, C. (2015c). On the decline of projective
techniques in professional psychology training.
North American Journal of Psychology, 17(2),
259-265.
Piotrowski, C. (2007). Forensic psychological testing as a
function of affiliation and organizational setting.
Organization Development Journal, 25(1), 94-98.
Piotrowski, C. (1999). Assessment practices in the era of
managed care: Current status and future
directions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55,
787-796.
Piotrowski, C. (1985). Clinical assessment: Attitudes of
the Society for Personality Assessment
membership. Southern Psychologist, 2(4), 80-83.
Piotrowski, C. (1984). The status of projective techniques.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 1495-1502.
Piotrowski, C., & Belter, R.W. (1999). Internship training
in psychological assessment: Has managed care
had an impact? Assessment, 6(4), 381-389.
Piotrowski, C., Belter, R.W., & Keller, J.W. (1998). The
impact of “Managed Care” on the practice of
psychological testing: Preliminary findings.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 441-447.
Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1992). Psychological
testing in applied settings: A literature review
from 1982-1992. Journal of Training & Practice in
Professional Psychology, 6(2), 74-82.
Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1989). Psychological
testing in outpatient mental health facilities: A
national survey. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 20, 423-425.
Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1989).Use of assessment
in mental health clinics and
services.Psychological Reports, 64, 1298.
Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1984).Psychodiagnostic
testing in APA-approved clinical psychology
programs. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 15, 450-456.
Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1984).Attitudes toward
clinical assessment by members of the AABT.
Psychological Reports, 55, 831-838.
Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1978).Psychological test
usage in southeastern outpatient mental health
facilities in 1975. Professional Psychology, 9, 63-
67.
Piotrowski, C., Keller, J.W., & Ogawa, T. (1993).
Projective techniques: An international
perspective. Psychological Reports, 72, 179-182.
Piotrowski, C., &Zalewski, C. (1993).Training in
psychodiagnostic testing in APA-Approved PsyD
and PhD clinical psychology programs. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 61(2), 394-405.
Pruitt, J.A., Smith, M., Thelen, M.H., &Lubin, B. (1985).
Attitudes of academic clinical psychologists
toward projective techniques: 1968-1983.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
16, 781-788.
Rabin, L.A. (1986). Projective techniques for adolescents
and children. New York: Springer.
Rabin, L.A., Paolillo, E., & Barr, W.B. (2016). Stability in
test-usage practices of clinical
neuropsychologists in the U.S. and Canada over
a 10-year period. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 31, 206-230.
Rabin, L., Barr, W.B., & Burton, M. (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.
Raez de Ramirez, M. (2011).Latin-American perspectives
on projective techniques, Rorschach diagnostics,
and evaluation of personality. Data based on
Symposium presented by the author: Lima, Peru.
Raez de Ramirez, M. (1999).The present situation about
the teaching of the Rorschach and other
projective tests in Peru.Revista de Psicologia,
17(2), 147-167.
Rapaport, D., Gill, M.M., & Schafer, R. (1968). Diagnostic
psychological testing (rev. ed.). New York:
International Universities Press.
Ready, R.E., Santorelli, G.D., Lundquist, T.S., & Romano,
F.M. (2016).Psychology internship directors‟
perceptions of pre-internship training preparation
in assessment. North American Journal of
Psychology, 18(2), 317-334.
Ready, R.E., &Veague, H.B. (2014). Training in
psychological assessment: Current practices of
clinical psychology programs. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 278-282.
Retzlaff, P. (1992). Professional training in psychological
testing: New teachers and new tests. Journal of
Training & Practice in Professional Psychology,
6(1), 45-50.
Reynolds, W.M. (1979). Psychological tests: Clinical
usage versus psychometric quality. Professional
Psychology, 10, 324-329.
Riccio, C.A., & Rodriguez, O.L. (2007). Integration of
psychological assessment approaches in school
psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 44(3),
243-255.
Rossini, E.D., & Moretti, R.J. (1997). Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT) interpretation: Practice
recommendations from a survey of clinical
psychology doctoral programs accredited by the
APA. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 28, 393-398.
Ryba, N.L., Cooper, V.G., & Zapf, P.A. (2003). Juvenile
competence to stand trial evaluations: A survey
of current practices and test usage among
psychologists. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 34(5), 499-507.

Schneider, M.F., &Perney, J. (1990).Development of the
Children‟s Apperceptive Story-Telling Test.
Psychcal Assent, 2(2), 179-185.
Shapiro, E.S., &Heick, P.F. (2004). School psychologist
assessment practices in the evaluation of
students referred for social/behavioral/emotional
problems. Psychology in the Schools, 41(5), 551-
561.
Sharpley, C.F., & Pain, M.D. (1988).Psychological test
usage in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 23(3),
361-369.
Shemberg, K., & Keeley, S. (1970). Psychodiagnostic
training in the academic setting: Past and
present. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 34, 205-211.
Smith, D., & Dumont, F. (1995). A cautionary study:
Unwarranted interpretations of the Draw-A-
Person test. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 26, 298-303.
Smith, S.R., Gorske, T., Wiggins, C., & Little, J.A.
(2010).Personality assessment use by clinical
neuropsychologists. International Journal of
Testing, 10, 6-20.
Sotelo-Dynega, M., & Dixon, S.G. (2014). Cognitive
assessment practices: A survey of school
psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 51(10),
1031-1045.
Stedman, J.M., et al. (2017). Availability of training in
psychological assessment at internship
sites.Journal of Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, in press.
Stedman, J.M., Hatch, J.P., &Schoenfeld, L.S. (2002).
Pre-internship preparation of clinical and
counseling students in psychological testing,
psychotherapy, and supervision: Their readiness
for medical school and non-medical school
internships. Journal of Clinical Psychology in
Medical Settings, 9, 267-271.
Stedman, J.M., Hatch, J.P., &Schoenfeld, L.S. (2000).
Pre-internship preparation in psychological
testing and psychotherapy: What internship
directors say they expect. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 321-326.
Stinnett, T.A., Havey, J.M., &Oehler-Stinnett, J. (1994).
Current test usage by practicing school
psychologists: A national survey. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 331-350.
Sundberg, N. (1961). The practice of psychological
testing in clinical services in the United States.
American Psychologist, 16, 79-83.
Sweeney, J.A., Clarkin, J.F., & Fitzgibbon, M.L.
(1987).Current practice of psychological
assessment. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 18, 377-380.
Swensen, C. (1968). Empirical evaluations of human
figure drawings: 1957-1966. Psychological
Bulletin, 70, 20-44.
Thelen, M.H., Varble, D.L., & Johnson, J. (1968).Attitudes
of academic clinical psychologists toward
TAT & CAT:17
projective techniques. American Psychologist, 23,
517-521.
Tsoi, M.M., &Sundberg, N.D. (1989).Patterns of
psychological test use in Hong Kong.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
20, 248-250.
Tuma, J.M., & Pratt, J. (1982). Clinical child psychology
practice and training: A survey. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 11, 27-34.
Vukovich, D.H. (1983). The use of projective assessment
by school psychologists. School Psychology
Review, 12, 358-364.
Wade, T.C., & Baker, T.B. (1977). Opinions and use of
psychological tests: A survey of clinical
psychologists. American Psychologist, 32, 874-
882.
Watkins, C.E., Campbell, V.L., & Manus, M.
(1990).Personality assessment training in
counseling psychology programs. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 55, 380-383.
Watkins, C.E., Campbell, V.L., & McGregor, P. (1988).
Counseling psychologists‟ use of and opinions
about psychological tests: A contemporary
perspective. The Counseling Psychologist, 16,
476-486.
Watkins, C.E., Campbell, V.L., Nieberding, R., &
Hallmark, R. (1995).Contemporary practice of
psychological assessment by clinical
psychologists. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 26, 54-60.
Wechsler, S.M., Oakland, T., Leon, C., et al. (2014). Test
development and use in five Iberian Latin
American countries. International Journal of
Psychology, 49(4), 233-239.
Weiner, I.B., & Greene, R.L. (2008).Handbook of
personality assessment. New York: Wiley.
Wilson, M.S., &Reschly, D.J. (1996).Assessment in
school psychology training and practice. School
Psychology Review, 25(1), 9-23.
Wood, J.M., Garb, H.N., Lilienfeld, S.O., &Nezworski,
M.T. (2002).Clinical assessment. Annual Review
of Psychology, 53, 519-543.
Woolford, J., Patterson, T., Macleod, E., Hobbs, L., &
Hayne, H. (2015). Drawing helps children to talk
about their presenting problems during a mental
health assessment. Clinical Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 20, 68-83.
Wright, C.V., Beattie, S.G., Galper, D.I., et al. (2016).
Assessment practices of professional
psychologists: Results of a national survey.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
47, 236-249.
Ziskin, J. (1995). Coping with psychiatric and
psychological testimony, Vol. 2 (5th ed.,
Challenging personality testing: The Rorschach &
other projective methods, pp. 866-870). Los
Angeles, CA: Law and Psychology Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.