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

✍ Scribed by James M. Wood; Scott O. Lilienfeld; Howard N. Garb; M. Teresa Nezworski

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2000
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 51 KB
• Volume: 56
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0021-9762
• DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(200003)56:3<441::aid-jclp19>3.0.co;2-q

✦ Synopsis

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), andWeiner (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.