ABSTRACT
The Rorschach test has long remained the center of controversy, despite its widespread popularity in clinical settings (Lubin, Larsen, & Matarazzo, 1984). Nowhere is this more evident than in the long, often acrimonious, series of reviews of the test published in the Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMYB. cf. Jensen, 1965). One long-standing controversy concerns whether the Rorschach is actually a “test” at all or whether it is more appropriately thought of as a clinical “technique” (Eron, 1965; Rabin, 1972; Zubin, Eron, & Schumer. 1965). In the fourth MMYB, Sargent, a supporter of the test, stated that “the Rorschach test is a clinical technique, not a psychometric method” (Sargent. 1953, P. 218). As a test, the Rorschach has been assailed by psychometrically minded psychologists as failing to meet many, if not most, of the standard criteria of test construction, including indices of internal consistency, interrater reliability, and validity (Dana, 1965; Jensen, 1965; McArthur, 1972). Further, as early as 1949, Cronbach expressed concerns about the quality of Rorschach research. In a quote used by Eysenck in a scathing MMYB review of the Rorschach (Eysenck, 1959), Cronbach declared that “perhaps ninety percent of the conclusions so far published as a result of statistical studies are unsubstantiated—not necessarily false—but based on unsound analysis” (Cronbach, 1949, p. 425).
