THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF THE RORSCHACH TESTIN A PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC

MARY HUNTER, PH.D.University of Hawaii

Honolulu

T H E perennial problem confronting the average clinical psychologist withhis crowded schedule is to find the techniques which will help him to obtain

the clearest possible picture in the shortest possible time, of the individual childbrought to him for study. This is unfortunate, but true. During the last fewyears there have been an increasing number of experiments with the RorschachInkblot test in the hope that this may prove to be the solution of our problem(6). Unfortunately this test is still in the process of standardization and valida­tion, and these processes are likely to take a long time and involve the testingof hundreds of subjects. At present, work with the test seems to have reached avirtual stalemate in a long controversy over the degree to which interpretationsof the records must be based on statistical frequencies or upon subjective judg­ments. In the meantime, our problem continues to cry for solution, and thequestion inevitably arises as to how far it is possible or justifiable for the clinicalpsychologist to begin using the test in its present state, granting that it is a psy­chometric-intuitional technique, the psychometric elements of which are notyet fully standardized and the intuitional elements not yet fully validated. Thisstudy was made in an attempt to estimate the contribution which might beexpected from the Rorschach test, even in its present tentative state, in the rou­tine examination of children in a psychological clinic.The following questions were proposed for study:

I. Can the Rorschach test be used to obtain an estimate of intelligence suf­ficiently accurate to serve as a check on other tests of intelligence?

2. Can the Rorschach test be used to indicate emotional stability and degreeof integration or maturity of personality?

3. Can the Rorschach test throw any light upon the problem of discrepanciesbetween potential ability as indicated by the Binet and actual schoolachievement ?

The psychologist who made the study had already given approximately 400Rorschach tests to children and adults and was thoroughly familiar with theliterature pertaining to the test. The subjects of the study were 50 pupils froma private school where children frequently continue in attendance from kinder­garten through sixth grade. While it was recognized that these children were ahighly selected group, it was felt that the advantages of intelligent and inter­ested cooperation from an equally selected group of teachers who had knownthe children over a period of years would outweigh other considerations. All ofthe children had been brought to the clinic at some time during their schoollives for a routine examination by means of the Binet and the Porteus Mazetests. The psychologist who gave the Rorschach tests did not have access to the

287

288 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPSYCHIATRY

reports of these routine tests after the Rorschach tests had been scored andthe children classified accordingly.

The. scoring used was the scoring advocated by the Rorschach Research Ex­change (4). The psychologist had established the reasonable objectivity of herscoring in a previous study (2). Norms were compiled from the 50 records andthe average psychogram drawn up. This psychogram was compared with that ofthe L.C.C. children of Manchester, England, published by Dr. Kerr, the onlystudy of preschool children published in English (3). The average psychogramof the L.C.c. children is only partially complete and is not entirely comparablebecause of the probable difference in intelligence between the two groups of chil­dren, as the average intelligence quotient of the Honolulu children was 120.

Comparison of the Average Psychograms of the L.C.C. and Honolulu Children

Total W D d dd FC CF C ~C M m (m) S X x A% 0%- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

L.C.C.Girls7-12 3·5 26·3 ·375 .64 .0251.03 1.06 ·33 53.8

Boyser-12 5·0 24.8 ·3 .66 .06 1.02 .6 .22 56.4

HonoluluGirls8-12 23·7 6·9 13·73 1.63 .8 .86 .46 2.21 ·54 .91 .31 I. 81 .86 1.3 57 34·4

Boys8-12 26·4 7·5 17.1 1.86 .71 I. 15 1.25 .36 2.76 ·95 .86 ·54 1.6 I. 12 .67 53·3 29.6

Thus basing her frankly subjective judgments upon all the objective dataavailable, the writer wrote personality descriptions of each child and rankedhim: first, according to a five point scale of intelligence; second, according to afive point scale of emotional stability. The factors considered in the intelligencerating followed Rorschach's schemata as follows: the relative number of wellperceived forms, of kinesthetic responses, and of whole interpretations, thepercentage of animal interpretations and original responses, and the successionand comprehension types. The factors considered in estimating the emotionalstability were: time of response, the ratio between kinesthetically determinedresponses and those determined by color, the predominating type of colorresponse, the number and type of chiaroscuro responses, number of space de.tail answers, presence or absence of color shock, general flexibility of approachand attitude.

Character sketches were prepared for each child by the room teacher and typedon separate slips of paper. Teachers were not asked to follow any specific outlinesince it was felt that the salient features of the child's personality would be notedmore often if the analysis were not directed along artificially determined lines.A group of three teachers and the principal then ranked each child according

VALUE OF RORSCHACH TEST: HUNTER

to the level at which he was in the habit of functioning. They were asked to rankthe children according to their intelligence and degree of emotional integration,but after long and fruitless discussion, finally decided that they were unable toseparate the two.

These data were handled in the following manner:

1. The two sets of personality sketches prepared by the psychologist from theRorschach records and by the teachers from their daily observations ofthe children were matched by the psychologist and three teachers workingindependently, taking one grade at a time. There were from 10 to 16 chil­dren in a grade.

2. The rankings of the children according to the psychologist's estimate ofintelligence as indicated by the Rorschach test were compared with: a,their ranking according to their Binet Intelligence Quotients; b, theirranking according to their Maze Test Quotients; c, their ranking accordingto the average between these two quotients." Since the number was small(three records had to be omitted because of incomplete data, leaving only47 cases) and no numerical score could be derived from the Rorschachrecords, the contingency method of comparison was used. The classifica­tions arbitrarily set up were: for the Binet and Maze Intelligence Quo­tients, below 100 IQ, 100-110, 110-120, 120-130, 130 and above; and forthe Rorschach, below average, average, superior, very superior, and verygifted. Since this was a highly selected group of children there was, ofcourse, no effort made to cover the entire distribution of intelligence. Thiscomparison was merely an attempt to find out how closely the writer couldestimate intelligence by means of the Rorschach test.

3. The rankings of the children according to the combined estimates of thethree teachers were compared with the averages of their combined Binet andMaze scores.

4. A study was made of the individual cases in which wide discrepancies appearbetween the various rankings,

The results were as follows: although other writers, notably Phillip Vernon(7), have advocated the matching of character sketches as a means of validation,matching the teacher's sketches with the Rorschach sketch in this study was ofdoubtful value. Only 5 children were correctly matched by all three teachersand psychologist. Seven were correctly matched by three-fourths of the judgesin agreement. Oddly enough, 19 children, while incorrectly matched, were inter­changed by three-fourths of the judges, in agreement, with another child havingvery similar characteristics. Individually considered, Teacher I matched 30 percent of the children correctly, Teachers II and III matched 32 per cent correctly,and the psychologist 40 per cent.

* It has been found in actual practice at this clinic that the average between the Binet and Mazescores gives a better estimate of the general level of functioning than either test alone.

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPSYCHIATRY

When the identity of the children was made known, there was still much dis­agreement as to the value of the Rorschach sketches. In a number of cases theywere felt to be extraordinarily accurate descriptions of the child's personality.In apparently an equal number of cases they seemed to be almost the oppositeor at least to have little relation to the child in question. In approximately threefourths of the cases the teachers agreed that knowing the identity of the childthey could readily accept the description as being an accurate one. On the otherhand, when persons other than the teachers who wrote the character sketcheswere asked to identify from these sketches the children whom they knew verywell, they found them no more helpful than the Rorschach characterizations. Onthe whole, this method was found to be too vague for further statistical analysis.There are a number of obvious reasons, the chief one being the relatively undif­ferentiated personalities of such young children. There were at least a dozen ofthe little girls, six of them in the third grade, whose sketches of either type showedscarcely a distinguishing characteristic when placed side by side. It is significantthat in case of the children who were very dull, or very stable, or very unstable,there was the greatest agreement between judges. There was less agreement incase of the very bright, especially if the child was also unstable. Indeed it madeone wonder just how it might be possible to arrive at any reasonably accurateappraisal of the ability of a presumably gifted, but neurotic child when everymeasure used disagreed with every other. The only conclusion reached from thispart of the study was that matching by sketches is a very rough method of com­parison, calculated to differentiate only extreme cases.

Considering the fact that the actual test findings were quite unknown, thereseemed to be an encouraging degree of correspondence between the psychologist'sindependent estimate of the children's intelligence from the Rorschach recordsand their scores on the standard tests. The Contingency coefficient on a five pointtable between the psychologist's estimates and the Binet IQ's was .69: betweenthe psychologist's estimates and Maze TQ's C was .60: between psychologist'sestimates and the averages of the Binet and Maze TQ the coefficient was .78.According to Garret (I) the highest coefficient possible on a five point con­tingency table is .89.

The comparison of the rankings of the children according to the combined esti­mates of the principal and three teachers (in group discussion) and the averagesof their combined Binet and Maze scores resulted in a C of .76.

While it is quite true that the psychologist inevitably gained some clues asto the child's intelligence and general level of functioning from her observationduring the test period, these results would seem to indicate that the psycholo­gist, using the Rorschach test, was able to make a slightly better estimate of thechild's ability in a half an hour than the teachers who had known him over aperiod of years. (This is true, of course, only if one grants the validity of thecombined Maze and Binet IQ). Moreover, the correlation between Binet scoresand the psychologist's estimate based on the Rorschach records, compares veryfavorably with the inter-correlations of other standard tests with the Binet.

VALUE OF RORSCHACH TEST: HUNTER

Since the teachers had not felt able to rate the children according to emotionalstability, no statistical ~omparison with the psychologist's rating was possible.However,' by comparison of the two sets of character sketches it was found that25 of the 50 children were described by one sketch or the other as unstable orextremely fearful or insecure, or hyper-active and troublesome to a markeddegree-or, in other words, showed symptoms of being what is generally recog­nized as a "problem child." Nineteen of them were so described by both sketches.One of the remaining six cases was a child who showed strong indications on theRorschach of being pre-schizophrenic, and it was learned later that her brotherwas one of the most seriously maladjusted in the group and her mother is a highlyneurotic, if not actually pre-psychotic, person. There is the possibility that inthis case the Rorschach record brought to light inner conflict which may notyet have become evident in the classroom. This was the one disagreement withregard to the eight cases considered seriously maladjusted by the psychologist.

The study of the children concerning whom there were wide divergencies ofopinion proved to be highly interesting. The psychologist's first rating, as hasbeen stated, was an attempt to consider purely intellectual factors, not generalfunctioning or emotionality. A misplacement by five points or more on one sideor the other of the Binet intelligence classification was considered an error. Since13 points in IQ is the standard deviation of the mean for Binet test scores, con­sideration of a five point misplacement is setting up a rather rigid standard ofaccuracy, but even so, 76 per cent of the children were accurately placed by thepsychologist from their Rorschach records. In seven of the twelve cases whichwere misplaced according to the Binet, the teacher's rating (based on generalefficiency) agreed with the psychologist's rating (according to intelligence). Inthree cases the teachers agreed with the Binet and in two cases all three ratingswere divergent.

In nine of the twelve cases (the same 9 cases in which the teachers had eitheragreed with the Rorschach or had disagreed with both Binet and Rorschach)there was a significant discrepancy between the Binet and Maze scores, dis­crepancies ranging all the way from Maze scores 20 points above the Rinet to40 points below. Moreover, eight of these twleve misplaced were rated by thepsychologist as below average in emotional adjustment, three of them seriouslybelow. Only one was rated above average.* The teachers, as stated before, didnot rate the children according to emotional stability, but in their charactersketches seven of these same eight children were described as unstable. Theeighth child was the pre-schizophrenic child mentioned earlier.

I t would seem as though the difference between the psychologist's estimate andthe Binet scores was caused by the same erratic behavior which caused the dis­crepancy between Rinet and Maze scores, and was accurately brought out inthe quality and type of response to the Rorschach test.

* This particular child was one whose Rinet IQ was 121, Maze TQ 118, rated superior by theRorschach, and genius by the teachers. She was an only child accustomed to being talked with as anequal by the several adults in her family and according to one teacher's report invariably offered asort of passive resistance to all test situations because she considered them childish.

AC

ompa

riso

nof

the

Stab

lea

nd

Pro

blem

Chi

ldre

nw

ithi

nth

eH

onol

ulu

Gro

up

No.

Tot

alW

Dd

ddF

+%

FCC

FC

2:C

Mm

(m)

SX

xA

%0%

P%

--------------------------------------

Stab

leG

irls

1419

·76.

611

.3I

.27

78.6

·73

.21.

7.2

7.8

3.2

7.6

6·7

3I

63·4

25·9

36.5

Prob

lem

Gir

lsII

27.8

7.2

16·5

53

75·5

I1

·73

2·73

.82

·99

.36

2·5

11.

650

.643

21.8

Stab

leB

oys

925

·57.

I16

·5.6

2.1

283

·11.

31.

9.1

23

·3.1

2.6

6.7

6·5

·47

·959

·729

·537

·7Pr

oble

mB

oys

1327

·38

17·8

2·3

1.3

861

.61

.61

2.22

1.07

1.07

.32

2·7

1.7

81.

1647

29·7

25·7

Stab

leB

oth

Sexe

s23

24.6

6·9

13·9

.81

.19

80·5

·95

1.3

1.1

62·

5.1

9·7

9·5

1·5

8.6

·961

.526

.837

.1Pr

oble

mB

oth

Sexe

s24

27·5

7.6

173.

62.

I80

·75

I.8

.67

2,47

·94

1.02

·34

2.6

1.39

1.3

848

.836

..123

·75

., '"., ;j tt:l ~ tt:l ::c ~ i o I%j ~ ~ @ ~

:193VALUE OF RORSCHACH TEST: HUNTER

The following are typical cases:

Joe Doe C.A. 9; Binet IQ IIS; Maze TQ 83; Rorschach estimate-Very gifted• Teacher's estimate-Superior

Teacher's characterization: Extremely unstable; slightest thing sets him off into asilly unorganized individual. Must be due to ill health because I feel he has one of the mostbrilliant minds in the group. Phenomenal memory. In discussions he compares differenthistorical ages! Mature; organizes and sorts facts and draws conclusions. Creative literaryability high.

Rorschach characterization: Very high intelligence of the abstract type. Combinesoriginality and creativeness with fine logical thinking when he cares to do so, but has astrong tendency to let his imagination run wild and indulge in extreme fantasy. Highlyintroversive, shy, ill at ease with others, and reacts by withdrawal into his own fantasticworld and by deliberately talking in a sort of allegorical fashion to mystify his hearersand to show his superiority and contempt. Actually, he is frightened by his sense of differ­ence from the group. He will excel in creative, possibly literary and philosophical work.

Mary Smith C.A. I I yr.; Binet IQ I 13; Maze TQ 130; Rorschach estimate-High averageTeacher's estimate-Superior

Teacher's characterization: A shy child with an inferiority complex, but this does notinterfere with ability to work. Works to full capacity and gets deep satisfaction from thework accomplished. She is not unstable and not creative.

Rorschach characterization: High average intelligence, but poorly organized. Smoth­ered inner life which insofar as it exists at all is a turmoil of frustration and anxiety, seekingexpression-not in outward form-but in queer abnormal fantasy that scarcely comes toconsciousness in articulate form because of fear of consequences. Does not dare to be her­self or give herself over to emotional experience. Unable to establish real emotional rapportwith anyone. Tries very hard to do good work, but "never sees the forest for the trees."Overconscientious. Inarticulate. This is a constricted, repressed, possibly pre-schizo­phrenic personality.

Bob Smith C.A. 10; Binet IQ 104; Maze TQ 154; Rorschach estimate-Very giftedTeacher's estimate-Superior

Teacher's characterization: This child is creative and unstable-victim of unwise pa­rental affection. He considers himself unable to work without a definite feeling of interestand sympathy on the part of the teacher under whom he works. He shows keen intellectualinterest and paints remarkably well, although the success of a picture depends upon hisrelationship with the adult in charge, on his mood, and his lack of fatigue. In all lines ofwork he is handicapped by his inability to work steadily so, that in general, his output isbarely above mediocre quality.

Rorschach characterization: Unusually high intelligence of the theoretical type. He isdeeply interested in cause and effect and in logical organization. Capable of independentand original thinking. Shows a delightful sense of color and reacts strongly and emotion­ally to many situations which he can imperfectly express to others. Either from negativismor fatigue he will not exert himself to use his full ability. He is quite ego-eentric and hisemotions are poorly controlled. He is too conscious of the reaction of adults to his behavior.

Turning to the Rorschach records themselves, the average psychograms of the25 children described as stable were compared with those of the 25 described as"problems." The average Binet and Maze scores of the two groups did not differby more than three points.

294 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPSYCHIATRY

It will be noted that among both sexes the unstable children gave a good manymore responses than the stable children. They also gave more small detail andrare detail responses. This overtalkativeness and attention to irrelevant mattersis in agreement with Meltzer's findings in his study of stutterers whom he foundto be emotionally disturbed (5). In both sexes the problem children gave signifi­cantly more X, more x, more S, and fewer A responses than the stable. Accordingto Rorschach's theory, these types of response are all indicative of instability.The numbers are so small that this tendency can only be noted and borne inmind in future studies.

It does seem possible to draw the following tentative conclusions from thisinvestigation: first, the Rorschach test can be used to obtain an estimate of intel­ligence sufficiently accurate to serve as a check on other tests of intelligence.Second, the test seems to indicate general all-around level of functioning some­what better than either the Binet or the Maze tests alone. Third, it does seemcapable of bringing to light emotional conflict which does not always appear inresponse to other tests, and cannot always be observed in the child's behaviorduring the examination period, but is often amply corroborated by teacher'sobservations. Fourth, insofar as it seems capable of indicating emotional blockingor dissipation of energy by neurotic fear, it should help to explain discrepanciesbetween potential ability as indicated by the Binet and actual school achieve­ment.

In brief, it seems reasonable to assume that the psychologist who is willing tolearn to score and interpret the Rorschach test, even in its present incompletestate of standardization, will find it of considerable value as a supplementarytest in cases where other standard tests disagree.

REFERENCES

1. GARRETT, HENRY E. Statistics in Psychology and Education.2. HUNTER, M. Responses oj Comparable White and Negro Adults to the Rorschach Test.

J. of Psycho!', 3: 173-182, 1936.3. KERR, M. The Rorschach Test Applied to Children. British J.of Psycho!', 26: 129-42,

1936.4. KLOFFER,B. and SENDER, S. A System oj Refined Scoring Symbols. Rorschach Res.

Exch., New York: Kloffer, NO.2, 1936.5. MELTZER, H. Personality Differences Among Stutterers as Indicated by the Rorschach

Test. AM. J. ORTHOPSYCHIATRY, 4: 262-282, 1934.6. RORSCHACH, H. Psychodiagnostik. Zurich: Hans Huber, 1932.7. VERNON, P. E. Recent Work on the Rorschach Test. J. Ment. Science, 81: 1-27, 1935·