Rorschach scores in applied clinical practice: a survey of perceived validity by experienced clinicians

We surveyed practicing clinicians who regularly used the Rorschach about the perceived clinical validity of specific Rorschach scores from many coding systems. The survey included quantitative feedback on the validity of specific variables as well as qualitative input in several areas, including the validity of specific variables, the potentially unique information that can be obtained from them, coding challenges associated with Comprehensive System (CS) codes, and recommendations for CS developments. Participants were recruited by applying a snowball sampling strategy. Based on responses from 246 experienced clinicians from 26 countries, composite judgments on rated variables were quite reliable (e.g., M α = .95 across 88 CS variables), despite limited agreement among any 2 judges. The aggregated judgments clearly differentiated among scores that were considered more and less clinically valid and the overall results aligned with recently obtained meta-analytic conclusions from the traditional validity literature (Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, & Bombel, 2012). The judges also provided guidance concerning revisions and enhancements that would facilitate Rorschach-based assessment in the future. We discuss the implication of the quantitative and qualitative findings and provide suggestions for future directions based on the results.