Limitations of the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool: A reply to Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and Weiner (2000)

  1. James M. Wood1,*,
  2. Scott O. Lilienfeld2,
  3. Howard N. Garb3,
  4. M. Teresa Nezworski4

Article first published online: 22 MAR 2000

DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200003)56:3<441::AID-JCLP19>3.0.CO;2-Q

Issue

Journal of Clinical Psychology

Journal of Clinical Psychology

Special Issue: MILLENNIUM ISSUE: “BACK TO THE FUTURE” IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY

Volume 56, Issue 3, pages 441–448, March 2000

Additional Information

How to Cite

Wood, J. M., Lilienfeld, S. O., Garb, H. N. and Nezworski, M. T. (2000), Limitations of the Rorschach as a diagnostic tool: A reply to Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and Weiner (2000). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56: 441–448. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200003)56:3<441::AID-JCLP19>3.0.CO;2-Q

Author Information

  1. 1

    University of Texas at El Paso

  2. 2

    Emory University

  3. 3

    Pittsburgh V.A. Health Care System and University of Pittsburgh

  4. 4

    University of Texas at Dallas

*James M. Wood, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso TX 79968; e-mail: jwood@utep.edu

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 22 MAR 2000
  2. Article first published online: 22 MAR 2000

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

Get PDF (51K)

Abstract

In “The Rorschach Test in Clinical Diagnosis: A Critical Review, With a Backward Look at Garfield (1947),” we have shown that the Rorschach has little validity as a diagnostic tool. In the present piece, we respond to comments by Garfield (2000), Lerner (2000), and Weiner (2000). Until very recently, Rorschach proponents have claimed that the test is useful for diagnostic purposes. It is striking, therefore, that the commentators on our article do not dispute strongly its conclusion that Rorschach scores generally are unrelated to psychiatric diagnoses. Instead, one commentator argues that the test's true usefulness consists in identifying symptoms and predicting behavioral outcomes. However, only three specific examples are given to support this assertion. Although the Rorschach may be useful for these other purposes, the burden of proof falls squarely on the test's proponents to document such claims. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 56: 441–448, 2000.

Get PDF (51K)