Clinical utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Method: reframing the debate

Recent published exchanges have focused on the clinical utility and diagnostic efficiency of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM), but key issues remain unresolved. In this article, 5 principles for evaluating RIM research are offered to help reframe the ongoing debate in this area. These are (a) recognize what the test can and cannot do; (b) choose appropriate outcome criteria to assess RIM effectiveness; (c) use multimethod, multicriterion matrices to place results in an appropriate context; (d) consider limitations in the outcome criteria themselves; and (e) use experimental--not just correlational--data to contrast the results obtained with projective and self-report tests. Coupled with Weiner's (2000a) guidelines for RIM interpretation, the principles outlined here can improve RIM research and practice, and help resolve some longstanding controversies in this area.