Teaching the Rorschach Comprehensive System
Students’ Difficulties With the Administration Process
Abstract
Abstract. The administration process of the Rorschach test is of utmost importance as it influences both the coding and the interpretative procedures. Performing it appropriately requires complex skills, knowledge, and solid training. The aim of the study is to describe students’ interests in and difficulties with administering the Rorschach (Comprehensive System) for the first time. A two-phase methodology, including an analysis of questionnaire responses followed by a study of students’ written narratives, using Iramuteq textual analysis software, was implemented with two different samples of third-year undergraduates (including 63 and 253 participants, respectively), recruited from a French psychology school. Our results show that students have a strong interest in understanding the test and wish to use it in their future practice. When administering the Rorschach for the first time, students find it difficult to cope with the complexity of the procedures at a technical, emotional, and relational level.
The Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 1974, 2003) can be controversial but is still a frequently used evaluation method in clinical practice (Wright et al., 2017). It also continues to be refined in the research context (Smith et al., 2018).
Despite a decrease in the number of hours devoted to teaching projective methods in the training of clinical psychologists in faculty curricula (Evans & Finn, 2017), the Rorschach test is still appreciated by the directors of internships and is frequently a part of clinicians’ assessment batteries (Ready et al., 2016). Currently, the Rorschach test ranks eight in the top 10 of the assessment measures used by practicing psychologists (Ready et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2017). The Rorschach (CS) remains present in more than half of the training programs and, “In general…is the most popular non-self-report test of psychopathology” (Mihura et al., 2017, p. 10). The Rorschach test continues to be effectively used in psychopathology, forensic, inpatient and outpatient practices for diagnosis and treatment recommendations (Erdberg, 2019; Wright et al., 2017). There is also interest in new applications, for example, Finn’s model of therapeutic assessment in psychotherapy (2020), the differential diagnosis of unipolar versus bipolar depression (Le Chevanton et al., 2020), or the application to disabilities such as autistic disorders (Frigaux et al., 2020).
Thus, despite criticism, a reduction in the hours of training, or the influence of other measurement tools, the Rorschach test remains resilient, possibly due to its perceived clinical utility. Clinical psychologists report that the Rorschach test usefully enlightens their patients’ personality dynamics and diagnosis (Norcross & Rogan, 2013), and reveals the holistic dimensions of the individual (Frigaux et al., 2020).
Psychology students report being attracted to the Rorschach training experience as they appreciate the emphasis on authentic case studies in the training (Mouret, 2017) and expect the Rorschach to become a significant tool in their professional careers (Mihura & Weinle, 2002).
Mastering the use of the Rorschach test (CS) in the assessment process is difficult as it is a demanding, time-consuming, and multifaceted technique (Grønnerød & Hartmann, 2010). Appropriate care must be taken regarding factors such as administration, instructions, recording responses, and inquiry (Exner 1974, 2003; Weiner, 2004). Furthermore, coding and interpreting the Rorschach test require careful, disciplined behavior and thinking (Andronikof, 2004) to obtain valid protocols. Coding and interpreting the Rorschach test are strongly linked to the administration procedures (Exner, 1974, 2003), which, according to our teaching experience, seem to be the cornerstone of the Rorschach training.
Yet, in the international literature on Rorschach training, little has been reported about students’ perspective on administering the Rorschach test. The international literature focuses on three main themes related to: (1) the difficulties students experience when coding, especially with determinants, special scores, and FQ (Fouques et al., 2017; Hilsenroth et al., 2007; Viglione et al., 2017); (2) the place of the Rorschach training in faculty curricula (Lewey et al., 2019; Mihura et al., 2017) since the Rorschach training is generally offered in graduate programs; (3) the conditions required for efficient training, particularly number of hours and coding responses (respectively 21–35 hours of training and 50 coding responses according to Hilsenroth et al., 2007), supervision (Viglione et al., 2017), and teaching techniques, such as videorecording (Hilsenroth et al., 2007). The goal of this research is to ascertain students’ interests and impediments in administering the RCS (Exner, 1974, 2003), thereby understanding their perceived difficulties with the process and improving the teaching of the test.
To fully achieve the research goal and broaden the understanding of the multi-faceted dimensions of the Rorschach learning process, we have selected a two-phase methodology including both quantitative and qualitative elements and have formulated the following research question: What are the typologies of the Rorschach administration difficulties and their prevalence among a population of undergraduate psychology students running the test for the first time? The first phase of the research aims to answer the research question through a survey, built upon an exploratory questionnaire, which is analyzed quantitatively. The second phase consists in exploring the students’ narratives of their experiences of their first Rorschach (C.S.) administration. The study, as a whole, was approved by the Research Evaluation Committee of the Research Department of the Ecole de Psychologues Praticiens.
The First Phase: Analysis of the Questionnaire
Context of the Study: Teaching of the Rorschach
In our private school, the teaching of the Rorschach is progressive, starting in the third year with a study of the history of the test, from Hermann Rorschach to the CS (Exner, 1974, 2003), including epistemological issues (11 hr) and the coding techniques and structural summary completion (36 hr). In the fourth year, a structural summary interpretation is completed (36 hr) and advanced case studies are offered in the fifth and last year before graduation (24 hr).
At the end of the third year, as part of the students’ professional education, they were asked, as a mandatory assignment, to administer a Rorschach test to a non-consulting adult participant, to score the protocol, and to carry out a critical analysis of their work. Students were asked to recruit a participant over the age of 18, whom they had never met before, who was neither a patient nor a student in psychology and who agreed to sign a participation consent form. They received a handout summarizing the procedures for administering the test in accordance with Exner’s recommendations after classroom training (Exner, 1974, 2003).
For those students who agreed to participate, an anonymous questionnaire was independently proposed (there was no link made between the questionnaire and the mandatory work) and a consent form was signed. The survey respondents are therefore students in their third year of psychology studies.
Participants
The study was offered to 200 students. The participation rate was 31.5%. The research sample comprised 64 third-year volunteer students from a French private professional psychology school recruited from 2013 to 2015. The average age of the sample was 21.5 years (SD = 2.4), 84% of whom were women.
The attendance rate for the course was of 92%. Students were evaluated through two examinations: a theoretical one consisting of a multiple-choice questionnaire about the history of the test, and about the CS basis, as well as a coding one, in which students’ ability to code a given protocol was evaluated. A score of “overall performance” was calculated (test theory: 30% + coding: 70%). The mean obtained was 11.8/20 (SD = 2.7), min = 8, max = 15, equivalent to “B minus” in Anglo-Saxon countries. The performance on the coding evaluation resulted in a mean of 11.9/20 (SD = 2.6; min = 7, max = 17) or “B minus.”
Measures
An exploratory questionnaire was developed, informed by a literature review and our relevant teaching experience. The thematic fields were acknowledged after a deductive–inductive qualitative analysis. Deductively, authors identified themes based on the framework of Ritzler and Gaudio (1976) and of Ritzler and Alter (1986); inductively they developed new themes through an iterative process based on a reading and analysis of the notes and observations of three Rorschach teachers. Themes were further grouped into categories to construct the questionnaire.
Questions were divided into four categories:
- (1)The administration process including perceived general technical skill (e.g., “I could write everything down”).
- (2)Interpersonal dynamics including perceived relational skill (e.g., “I managed to maintain the framework”).
- (3)Emotional experience including the management of emotions (e.g., “I was tense”).
- (4)Professional stance including the perception of the test as a possible tool in professional practice (e.g., “I want to continue administering Rorschach tests”).
The questionnaire comprised 36 items covering the four categories, randomly distributed, rated on a 6-point Likert scale (from not at all to totally) without the possibility of a neutral response and allowing for a continuous and dichotomous treatment of the items (yes/no). A total of 19 items were reversed. Reliability analysis revealed a Cronbach’s α of .84, which demonstrates good internal consistency.
In order to assess the administration quality, two teachers (first and last authors) conducted a consensual evaluation of the protocols. They identified the lack of prompting after the first response, possible problems of sequencing of the responses, which both led to erroneous numbers of protocol responses (R); and the quality of the enquiry: correct questions asked, misformulated ones, or lack of questions.
Data Analysis
Statistical Analysis
For each item, distributions were analyzed and a categorial classification was made. When participants rated a 0, 1, or 2, a “no” score was coded. When 3, 4, or 5 were chosen, a “yes” was coded. In this way, we were able to analyze proportion tendencies for each question and compute percentages. Since each question is independent and mandatory, the sum of the “yes” percentages obtained for each question may exceed 100.
Bivariate Analysis
To test possible links between continuous variables, correlation coefficients (Pearson) were performed. To test possible links between categorial variables, a chi-square analysis was used. Statistical analyses were performed with Jamovi software.
Results
The complete results of the questionnaire are available in the table in Electronic Supplementary Material 1 (ESM 1).
The Administration Process – Technical Aspects
In general, 75% declared that the task was difficult but 92% estimated that they had managed the situation well. Overall, 73% overestimated their performance since they perceived their collected protocols as valid according to the administration instructions, but according to their teachers few were valid, because of administration and enquiry mistakes. Of the sample, 33% needed to refer to their documents during the administration and 20% encountered difficulties in notetaking.
During the response phase, only 5% of the sample declared that it was difficult to master the task and 41% experienced difficulties in separating responses. Moreover, 20% of the whole sample made a mistake on R (according to first and fourth authors’ evaluations) and among these, more than one-third (8% of the whole sample) did not seem to recognize the mistake as they did not find it difficult to separate responses even though they obviously had trouble in doing so.
The inquiry phase task was perceived as more difficult than the first one, with 45% declaring not having mastered it. Overall, 67% of the sample acknowledged not having asked enough questions; 42% declared having worded the questions poorly (e.g., using “why” instead of “how” or forgetting to question keywords). Of the sample, 70% believed they had made mistakes during this phase.
Thus, fewer than half of the sample declared having less control during the inquiry phase than during the response phase. A comparison of these opinions with the teachers’ evaluation of the protocols reveals that 30% were not fully aware of their shortcomings. Difficulties included: not asking enough questions, formulating them poorly, or, more importantly, forgetting to question keywords.
Interpersonal Dynamics – Relationship With the Participants
The interpersonal aspects of the task were experienced as difficult for 36% of our sample. Although 27% felt too close to the subject and 8% too distant, 94% declared that they were at the right distance. The most surprising results were that 98% of the whole sample declared they were able to set a framework, and 91% believed that they were able to maintain it.
We further analyzed this result and found that among the 94% of the students who considered themselves proficient, none of them felt they were too distant. Of the respondents, 73% felt that they were too close. Reasons for this might include: The testers were young and inexperienced; they were not working in an institution; the assessment was not done for clinical reasons, or requested by the participants (who were informed that they would not receive any feedback).
The Emotional Experience – Management of Emotions
Of the respondents, 61% declared they were sometimes anxious during the exercise, 41% felt like laughing and 20% were embarrassed by some of the participants’ responses. Despite that, emotional reactions did not alter the level of overall satisfaction, as 92% enjoyed the exercise.
Another result emerged when we compared the responses for two items: “I felt comfortable” and “I was tense during the exercise.” Coherent answers were given by 48.4%, indicating that they were comfortable, without tension, while 51.6% gave ambivalent responses, indicating they were at ease and tense or not tense but not at ease. None of the participants provided the “tense and uncomfortable” response. However, after dividing the sample into two groups – “at ease” versus “ambivalent” – no significant differences were found in the rest of our data (according to the chi-square analysis).
The Professional Stance – The Use of the Rorschach in Professional Settings
All the respondents declared they wished to improve their mastery of the Rorschach test. Of these, 95% wish to carry on with the Rorschach test administration and training and 92% reported that they would probably use it in their future practice.
Rorschach Technical Mastery – Theoretical and Technical Learning
Academic performances are positively linked to the feeling of comfort during administration and to the perceived technical mastery during the inquiry phase. Correspondingly, feelings of embarrassment are negatively linked to academic performance (as shown in the table in ESM 2). We observed that better performance in coding is linked to mastery of the inquiry, and vice versa.
To summarize the findings of the questionnaire, we can assert that:
The Rorschach test is of interest to undergraduate psychology students, who imagine using it as a clinical tool in their professional practice. However, unless students thoroughly understand the real clinical value of the test, one cannot exclude the possibility that a desirability bias has inflated this result.
The administration process is flawed by the lack of mastery of the inquiry process and by the interpersonal dynamics. We speculate that in the “at ease group,” some students must have felt too self-confident considering the quality of the protocols. In the “ambivalent group,” some students probably had to deal with contradictory emotions, which may have restricted their learning progress or resulted in an indication of too little self-confidence.
Improving the test training of students in administration of the Rorschach is vital to help them evaluate their performance correctly, progress in their inquiry methods, improve their coding skills, and better manage their relationship with the participants.
The Second Phase: Exploring Students’ Perceptions
On the basis of the analysis of the questionnaire, from a theoretical, ontological position (Zou et al., 2014), we implemented a second phase. Our aim was to comprehensively explore the subjective perceptions of a population of psychology undergraduates regarding their difficulties in learning the administration of the Rorschach test.
Method
Participants
The participants were 301 undergraduate students in their third year of psychology, enrolled in the same private professional psychology school as the questionnaire respondents of the first phase. They were asked, as a mandatory exercise at the end of their first Rorschach course, to proceed with a Rorschach test administration (CS) in non-consulting settings (as in the first phase). To diminish potential “desirability bias,” the design was modified. This exercise did not involve any coding or work on the protocols collected at this stage. Students were instructed to answer the following question in writing: “What are the difficulties I met during this clinical sequence?” The word “clinical” might come as a surprise in a non-consulting environment. But students were instructed to understand it as a professional act that was to meet the ethical requirements of any professional encounter. A total of 235 narratives were collected from 2015 to 2017.
Because of the complete anonymity of the narratives, the average age or sex ratio of this sample could not be computed. However, thanks to an excellent participation rate (78%), we can assume that the demographics are very close to those of the third-year student population in this French psychology school (between 21 and 23 years old; 89% were women).
Data Analysis
The collected narratives were processed using Iramuteq lexicometric software (Ratinaud, 2012) based on the Reinert method (1983, 2008). The Iramuteq textual analysis aims to ascertain how participants talk about their difficulties when administering the Rorschach test. The algorithm used by the Iramuteq program is based on a hierarchical bottom–up classification and the calculation, through the χ2, of word occurrence in a text. The Reinert method consists of four steps (for a detailed description of the four steps of the lexicometric analysis, see Reinert, 1983, 2008).
Ethics
All narratives were anonymous. The students previously gave their written consent for the use of their written feedbacks for research purposes.
Results
The lexicometric analysis revealed five word-classes as shown in Figure 1 (85.86% of classified text segments that were identified by the Iramuteq software). For each word class, the words to be interpreted were those whose χ2 of association with the class was greater than 10. Tool words (prepositions, articles, adverbs) and 210 polysemic words (that cannot be clearly interpreted, used in different contexts, such as “to go,” “to take,” etc.) were excluded from the interpretation of the results. The size of the class is indicated by the percentage of the classified corpus (e.g., Class 2 represents 20.3% of the entire corpus).
A description of the words in the five classes and the χ2 of association with the classes are provided in the tables in ESM 3.
Class 1 included 18.25% of the classified text segments. The lexical field of Class 1 is associated with the description of the administration of the Rorschach test from a technical point of view.
Students described the test administration process as an interesting and instructive exercise, allowing them to understand the real value of the test. They perceived their experience as an additional preparation for their degree and for their self-confidence. For example: “The administration exercise is interesting, enriching, and positive and requires a lot of training.”
The administration situation could make them feel anxious or intimidated. They mentioned their lack of experience and practice but were optimistic, declaring that difficulties would decrease with experience and training: “The administration process is somehow anxiety inducing but to do it was really good.”
Moving from theory to practice allowed the students to identify hitches related to their actions and reactions in the interpersonal situation. It also rendered the knowledge acquired during the course concrete and better understood: “It is exciting to switch from theory to practice and to see all the unexpected difficulties emerge.”
Class 2 included 20.26% of the classified text segments. The lexical field of Class 2 is associated with the description of the Rorschach test and more precisely with the cards and the participants’ answers.
Students were concerned with the number of given responses, had difficulties in getting the participant to verbalize or in dealing with a detailed answer: “I was anxious to have enough responses.” They interpreted the participants’ long moments of silence as a refusal to participate or as the expression of unease within the relationship: “When moments of silence are too long, I fear the subject’s refusal to go on, and feel uneasy.”
The students expressed doubts over the administration rules (e.g., turning the card, removing the card), wondering whether they had the right “to do that to the participant.” Finally, students discussed the neutral attitude that must be adopted during the test and the need to master their own thoughts, urges to laugh, or interventions: “When the participant’s responses are like those studied in class, I cannot prevent myself from interpreting or laughing.”
Class 3 included 19.07% of the classified text segments. The lexical field of Class 3 is associated with the description of the relationship between the student and the participant.
Students described the role of the future psychologist that they tried to embrace, sometimes with difficulty, as being uncomfortable. Their goal was to investigate the psychological functioning of the participants through a relationship within which they strive to embody benevolent neutrality by making sure that their emotions are not manifest and by finding the right posture and emotional distance in order to reassure the participant. This exercise allowed them to gain confidence, regulate their nervousness, and control the situation, even if amusing or unexpected responses made this attitude difficult to maintain.
Sometimes students had difficulties in establishing a framework of trust with the participant, as they had to manage their requests, account for everything they said and did, and, ultimately, manage their own emotions. The students felt the weight of the relationship dynamics and their difficulties in controlling the feelings shared by the participants: “I feared like opening a door in the participant’s life that must not be opened.”
The students experienced a conflict between the need for interaction with the participant (for the sake of the relationship) and the need for recording all the given responses verbatim (for the sake of the protocol validity). As such, they emphasized the necessity for intensive test administration training to experience different participant reactions and to learn how to avoid being overwhelmed by the participant’s emotional state: “It is the training that will empower us and enable us to control over all the parameters of the communication situation, the reactions we ourselves might have, and the way they might influence the participant.”
Class 4 included 22.46% of the classified text segments. The lexical scope of Class 4 is associated with the questions asked by students during the enquiry.
Students seemed to be reassured by not having to score the collected protocols because of the large number of difficulties encountered during the administration process. They acknowledged that awkwardness could lead to invalid or incomplete protocols (e.g., asking too few or too many questions). Students expressed doubts over the right determinants to be scored (especially shadings but also form, movement, and color), over the keywords to be asked, to clarify a response, and over the need to question the participant when all the information had already been given in the response phase: “I am sure that I missed a lot during the inquiry phase and did not further investigate other aspects.”
Class 5 included 19.96% of the classified text segments. The lexical field of Class 5 is associated with notetaking during the Rorschach test.
Students stated that they were tense when taking notes to record all the answers and that this exercise required a high degree of concentration. The difficulty stemmed from the need to be quick, and at the same time, write what the participant was saying, the response location, and think about words that require more explanation. The difficulties were also linked to the difficulty of finding the right balance between observing, listening, and writing and the risk of missing or forgetting important aspects of the process. A student summarized most of the difficulties encountered as follows: “It is difficult to observe the participant’s gestures and attitudes at the same time, to refocus on their discourse about the card when a digression becomes too important and to appear as relaxed as possible, despite a hand cramp.”
To summarize the findings of the qualitative phase we can assert that: The results obtained in the second phase (five lexicometric classes) overlap the four categories described in the first phase. Thus, from the analysis of students’ narratives, the following difficulties in the Rorschach administration process can be discerned:
- (1)Technical aspects of the administration process including management of practicalities (Class 1 and 2), the inquiry process (Class 4), and comprehensive notetaking (Class 5). The administration process was perceived to be difficult because of its complexity: From the practicalities of notetaking or time control to the subtleties of the inquiry, the undergraduates were lost in the middle of the simultaneous management of all these tasks.
- (2)Relational dynamics (Class 3) were dominated by students’ difficulties in regulating emotions, in building a working frame, and in setting limits with the participant. As a coping strategy, some avoided being overwhelmed emotionally by not paying attention to the participant but focusing on notetaking and on their inner world (Class 5).
- (3)Emotional experience (class 2) includes anxiety in coping with one’s own emotions and avoiding any negative bias or sharing emotions with the participant.
- (4)Professional stance (Class 2) comprises the struggle that students experience to maintain the assessment frame within a professional interaction. The correct professional stance is difficult to achieve at this level of training, but students were aware of their shortcomings and willing to improve through more training.
Overall, the Rorschach test aroused great interest in students, who found it enriching for their professional development (Class 1) and experienced the administration process as a “step into real life!”
General Discussion: Synthesizing Findings From Phase 1 and Phase 2
The two surveys yielded similar findings: All the respondents in both phases held positive views of the Rorschach and considered using it in their future clinical practice, which is a trend that has not faded through the decades (Mihura & Weinle, 2002).
The Rorschach administration process was appreciated as it provides an initial authentic professional experience, despite generating some anxiety and trepidation (Miller, 2009). Most of our sample students felt that their classes had prepared them well for the administration process, but this was contradicted by their initial practices, as their ability to structure the administration process was not yet mastered and their proficiency either under- or overestimated. The feeling of being well prepared might stem from the clarity of the administration instructions. The latter do not require much decision-making and are not difficult to learn, thus allowing students to focus on their proficiency in coding (Exner 1974, 2003).
The main difficulty expressed by our students was coping with the complexity of these procedures at a technical and interpersonal level. Students were required to juggle: mastery of the system’s practicalities; the appropriateness of inquiry interventions; the uniqueness of the professional relationship; and the regulation of their emotional state while being alone in an unknown context. It was evident that when confusion or anxiety arose during the Rorschach administration process, students focused on notetaking, for the sake of the protocol validity, and thus tried to cope by avoiding the relationship with the participant. Avoidance helped students to complete the whole administration process but probably hindered viewing the Rorschach administration as an interactive process (Handler, 2013). On the contrary, students who are better prepared theoretically were more aware of their attitudes and relational difficulties during the Rorschach administration process.
We can compare the difficulties encountered within the Rorschach administration process with those involving coding Cognitive Special Scores, Determinants, and coding Form Quality for objects that were not listed (Viglione et al., 2017), because these tasks are intimately linked and require observation, logical thinking, organization, knowledge, and cognitive flexibility in adjusting concepts to the uniqueness of the participant’s perceptions.
We can reasonably assume that feelings of mastery and ease with the Rorschach administration will improve as competency in coding develops along with the clinical experience, continuing education, and supervision (Viglione et al., 2017).
Strengths and Limitations of the Study
One of the strengths of the study is the focus on a relatively under-researched topic, which draws attention to the difficulties arising during the Rorschach administration process. Another is the combined quantitative and qualitative elements of the methodology that facilitate the exploration of a complexity of experiences.
This study had some limitations. First, the samples: our participants were not randomly selected, and the samples were not of the same size. The timing for the two phases was not designed to be simultaneous, and thus the same subjects did not respond to the same research design. Our sample is context-bound (a private French school of psychology); therefore, the findings might not represent a wider population of Rorschach students and cannot be generalized. The sample also has a gender imbalance; however, the predominance of women studying psychology in this group is consistent with the distribution in the general French population (Schneider & Mondière, 2017). Second: The survey questionnaire did not undergo a strict psychometric validation. Third: Despite the anonymization procedure, a possible desirability bias may have influenced some results because the researchers were also the teachers of the students.
Conclusion
The Rorschach test must continue to develop at a professional and academic level. On a professional level, internship training directors (as well as numerous interns) confirm that competency in projective assessment is a desired skill for professional practice (Joy, 2020) as it harbors unique clinical value in providing rich data that can foster potential working hypotheses for psychotherapy (Piotrowski, 2015).
Proficiency in the test is most likely the key to resilience and viability. For that purpose, teachers and clinical instructors must take the time to explain procedures and answer questions, to enable students to acquire more didactic and practical experience (Mihura & Weinle, 2002) and develop interpretive skills that will serve them well in standard clinical practice (Joy, 2020). For this reason, we believe that starting to learn the Rorschach in the undergraduate years is an opportunity to prepare readiness internship competency (American Psychological Association, n.d.) by developing: First, an awareness of the strengths and limitations of administration, scoring, and interpretation is created (the basic foundations of the test are acquired through at least 2 years of intensive courses of 36 hr/year). Second, self-awareness and reflexivity in clinical practice are reinforced by the ongoing training and theoretical recall in the following years. Third, interpersonal skills in establishing professional relationships and frame-keeping are developed. The learning is progressive and includes technical skills, reflectivity, and mindfulness.
In our curricula, the third year of the undergraduate psychology studies corresponds to a transition from theoretical courses to more applied ones like psychometrics, Wechsler’s scales, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), the helping relationships, and an introduction to research methodology. The third year is also the beginning of the professional path, because students must complete 300 hr of observational internship under the supervision of a senior psychologist. The Rorschach test might be part of those observational assignments.
To reach this goal it might be useful to adapt the test-teaching methods to the students’ needs and faculty constraints. We suggest addressing the concern that students under- or overestimate their skills, by providing a systematic presentation of the administration process and coding, along with practical exercises including modeling and recorded role playing with instructors’ feedback (Hilsenroth et al., 2007; Mihura et al., 2017). For example, the teacher could play the role of a participant and the student do the inquiry and code. The coding can then be discussed and evaluated. As progress is made with practicalities, interpersonal difficulties could be introduced into the role play. Alternatively, peer role-play, under the teachers’ supervision, can be organized where students alternate, playing the roles of interviewer and participant, to gain insight into both experiences.
The provision of a role model by a teacher is an important component of efficient Rorschach training (Hilsenroth et al., 2007). Students need identificatory models on which to project themselves in the future (Mouret, 2017). In our private school, Rorschach teachers (CS) are appropriately trained by a certified clinician, undergo supervision for at least 3 years (in coding and interpreting), and are required to update their knowledge regularly through continuing education. As such, they can fulfill three important functions: practice, research, and student supervision. They are able to introduce their students to the significance and use of the test while motivating and encouraging them to improve.
In addition, we believe that the same Rorschach teacher must be able to link the content of their teaching to other courses, essential to the comprehension and use of the test, namely, psychometry, psychopathology, and psychotherapy, which comprehensively introduce students to the complexity of the clinical work.
The supervision of Rorschach administration process and coding is necessary to:
- (1)Empower students in the management of clinical relationships with diverse clients (consultants or non-consultants) and understand the fundamentals of clinical helping relationships;
- (2)Adjust students’ self-evaluation as Rorschach users, to balance inappropriate feelings of anxiety or over evaluation and build self confidence in testing skills; and
- (3)Help them to integrate the complexity of the Rorschach test, which contains in all its aspects the quintessence of the clinical work – a form of “clinical psychology in a nutshell.”
All these steps will lead students to be, “Good examiners who exercise good judgment in the process of administering the test, and deal with their subjects in a tactful, sensitive and very human manner” (Exner & Erdberg, 2005, p. 82).
Electronic Supplementary Materials
The electronic supplementary material is available with the online version of the article at https://doi.org/10.1027/1192-5604/a000138
References
. (n.d.). Competency benchmarks in professional psychology. https://apa.org/ed/graduate/competency
(2004). Le Rorschach en système intégré: Introduction
[The Rorschach as an integrated system: Introduction] . Psychologie Française, 49(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2003.11.005(2019).
The Rorschach . In G. GoldsteinD. N. AllenJ. DeLucaEds., Handbook of psychological assessment (4th ed., pp. 419–432). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802203-0.00014-6(2017). Training and consultation in psychological assessment with professional psychologists: Suggestions for enhancing the profession and individual practices. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1187156
(1974). The Rorschach test: A comprehensive system, Wiley.
(2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Basic foundations and principles of interpretation, Vol. 1 (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
(2005). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system, Advanced interpretation, Vol. 2 (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
(2020). In our clients’ shoes: Theory and techniques of therapeutic assessment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
(2017, July 18–21).
Perception of difficulties met by students when using the Rorschach comprehensive System for the first time . In D. CastroEd., Teaching projective methods. [Symposium]. 22nd Congress of the International Rorschach Society, Paris, France. Abstract 304.(2020). L’intérêt du test de Rorschach dans l’évaluation diagnostique des troubles du spectre autistiquex
[The interest of the Rorschach test in the diagnostic evaluation of autism spectrum disorders] . L’Évolution Psychiatrique, 85(1), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evopsy.2019.11.002(2010). Moving Rorschach coding forward: The RN-Rorschach coding system as an exemplar of simplified coding. Rorschachiana, 31(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1027/1192-5604/a000003
(2013).
The importance of teaching and learning personality assessment . In M. J. HilsenrothD. L. SegalM. HersenEds., Teaching and learning personality assessment (pp. 35–62). Routledge.(2007). Criterion-based training for Rorschach scoring. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.1.2.125
(2020). Why teach future psychotherapists to administer and interpret projective tests? Well, why teach future physicians and surgeons to perform dissections? SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 27(1), 6–11.
(2020). Differentiating unipolar and bipolar depression: Contribution of the Rorschach test (Comprehensive System). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(4), 769–777. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22912
(2019). Coding with R-PAS: Does prior training with the Exner comprehensive system impact interrater reliability compared to those examiners with only R-PAS-based training? Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(4), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1476361
(2017). Psychological assessment training in clinical psychology doctoral programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1201978
(2002). Rorschach training: doctoral students’ experiences and preferences. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7901_03
(2009). Teaching the Rorschach backwards, forwards, and upside down: Creative ideas to engage students in the learning process [Conference session abstract]. 8th Conference on Best Practices in Teaching Controversial Issues in Psychology, Atlanta, GA. https://doi.org/10.1037/e522282013–053
(2017). L’enseignement de la psychologie: Point de vue des étudiants en France
[The teaching of psychology: Students’ point of view in France] . Pratiques Psychologiques, 23(3), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prps.2017.04.001(2013). Psychologists conducting psychotherapy in 2012: Current practices and historical trends among Division 29 members. Psychotherapy, 50(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033512
(2015). Clinical instruction on projective techniques in the USA: A review of academic training settings 1995–2014. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 22(2), 83–92.
(2012). Iramuteq [Computer software].. http://www.iramuteq.org/
(2016). Psychology internship directors’ perceptions of pre-internship training preparation in assessment. North American Journal of Psychology, 18(2), 317–334.
(1983). Une méthode de classification descendante hiérarchique: Application à l’analyse lexicale par contexte
[A method of hierarchical classification: application to lexical analysis by context] . Cahiers de l’analyse des données, 8(2), 187–198.(2008).
Mondes lexicaux stabilisés et analyses statistiques de discours [Stabilized lexical worlds and statistical analysis of discourse] In S. HeidenB. PinceminEds., Actes des 9èmes Journées internationales d’Analyses Statistiques des Données Textuelles (pp. 579–590). Presses Universitaires de Lyon.(1986). Rorschach teaching in APA-approved clinical graduate programs: Ten years later. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_6
(1976). A survey of Rorschach teaching in APA-approved clinical graduate programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 40(5), 451–453. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4005_1
(2017, April). Les Psychologues en France: nombre et activités, des données actualisées et inédites
[Psychologists in France: Number and activities, updated and unpublished data] . Fédérer, 87, 16–21.(2018). A scientific critique of Rorschach research: Revisiting Exner’s issues and methods in Rorschach research (1995). Rorschachiana, 39(2), 180–203. https://doi.org/10.1027/1192-5604/a000102
(2017). A survey of challenges experienced by new learners coding the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(3), 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1233559
(2004).
Rorschach assessment: Current status . In M. J. HilsenrothD. L. SegalEds., Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment: Vol. 2: Personality assessment (pp. 343–355). John Wiley & Sons.(2017). Assessment practices of professional psychologists: Results of a national survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(2), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000086
(2014). A mixed methods research design for bridging the gap between research and practice in construction safety. Safety Science, 70, 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.07.005
Summary
Qualified psychologists and students appreciate the Rorschach Test for its originality and the insights it can offer. To be effective, this test must be understood theoretically and mastered clinically. This begins with the integration of the administration process, on which its validity and interpretability depend. The administration process involves subtle and complex procedures on a technical, cognitive, and emotional level. The objective of this study was to describe and analyze the difficulties experienced by psychology students during their first administration of the Rorschach. Suggestions are offered to adjust the teaching to the specific needs of students. The methodology consisted of two distinct phases: first, the analysis of a questionnaire constructed for the purpose of the research, aimed at identifying and classifying the students’ difficulties. It was based on the answers of 64 participants, 18–24 years old, mostly women, in their third year in a French school of psychology. The second phase aimed to deepen the understanding of the results obtained from the questionnaire. Written responses were collected from 235 third-year students, recruited from the same school, in answer to the question: “What difficulties did I encounter in taking the Rorschach test for the first time?” Data analysis was carried out using Iramuteq software, based on the Reinert method. The results highlighted four main classes of difficulties related to the administration of the Rorschach, which include: (1) technical management aspects, (2) management of the relational dynamics with the participant, (3) control of students’ emotions, and (4) maintenance of the professional framework with the participant. Despite these difficulties, all respondents stated that they appreciated the exercise of administering the Rorschach test, which they perceived as a first step toward clinical practice. Based on these results, pedagogical suggestions are formulated to help students learning the Rorschach test to overcome them as quickly as possible and to invest themselves with pleasure and interest in the test administration process.
Résumé
Les psychologues cliniciens et les étudiants en psychologie apprécient le test de Rorschach pour son originalité et les pistes de réflexion qu’il peut offrir. Pour donner toute sa mesure, ce test doit être compris théoriquement et maîtrisé cliniquement. Cela commence par l’intégration du processus d’administration, dont dépendent sa validité et son interprétabilité. Le processus d’administration comporte des procédures subtiles et complexes au niveau technique, cognitif et émotionnel. L’objectif de cette étude est de décrire et d’analyser les difficultés et intérêts rencontrés par les étudiants en psychologie lors de leur première administration du Rorschach en Système Intégré. Des suggestions sont proposées pour adapter l’enseignement aux besoins spécifiques des étudiants. La méthodologie se compose de deux phases distinctes : premièrement, l’analyse d’un questionnaire construit pour les besoins de la recherche, visant à identifier et classer les difficultés des étudiants. L’analyse est basée sur les réponses de 64 sujets, âgés de 18 à 24 ans, majoritairement des femmes, en troisième année dans une école française de psychologie. La deuxième phase vise à approfondir la compréhension des résultats obtenus à partir du questionnaire. Des réponses écrites sont recueillies auprès de 235 élèves de troisième année, recrutés dans la même école, en réponse à la question : « Quelles difficultés ai-je rencontrées en passant le test de Rorschach pour la première fois? » . L’analyse des données a été réalisée à l’aide du logiciel Iramuteq, basée sur la méthode Reinert. Les résultats ont mis en évidence quatre grandes classes de difficultés liées à l’administration du Rorschach qui comprennent : (1) les aspects de gestion technique (2) la gestion de la dynamique relationnelle avec le participant (3) le contrôle des émotions des étudiants et (4) le maintien du cadre professionnel avec le participant. Malgré ces difficultés, tous les répondants ont déclaré apprécier l’exercice d’administration du test de Rorschach, qu’ils ont perçu comme un premier pas vers la pratique clinique. Sur la base de ces résultats, des suggestions pédagogiques sont formulées pour aider les étudiants apprenant le test de Rorschach à les surmonter le plus rapidement possible et à s’investir avec plaisir et intérêt dans le processus d’administration du test.
Resumen
Los psicólogos y estudiantes aprecian la prueba de Rorschach por su originalidad y la información que puede ofrecer. Para ser eficaz, esta prueba debe entenderse teóricamente y dominarse clínicamente. Esto comienza con la integración del proceso de administración, del cual dependen su validez e interpretabilidad. El proceso de administración implica procedimientos sutiles y complejos a nivel técnico, cognitivo y emocional.
El objetivo de este estudio es describir y analizar las dificultades experimentadas por los estudiantes de psicología durante su primera administración del Rorschach. Se presentan sugerencias para ajustar la enseñanza a las necesidades específicas de los estudiantes. La metodología consta de dos fases diferenciadas: en primer lugar, el análisis de un cuestionario construido con el objetivo de la investigación, dirigido a identificar y clasificar las dificultades de los estudiantes. Se basa en las respuestas de 64 sujetos, de 18 a 24 años, en su mayoría mujeres, en su tercer año en una escuela francesa de psicología.
La segunda fase tiene como objetivo profundizar en la comprensión de los resultados obtenidos en el cuestionario. Se recopilan respuestas escritas de 235 estudiantes de tercer año, reclutados en la misma escuela, en respuesta a la pregunta: “¿Qué dificultades encontré en la utilización de la prueba de Rorschach por primera vez?”
El análisis de datos se realizó mediante el software Iramuteq, basado en el método Reinert. Los resultados destacaron cuatro clases principales de dificultades relacionadas con la administración del Rorschach que incluyen: (1) aspectos técnicos de gestión (2) gestión de la dinámica relacional con el participante (3) control de las emociones de los estudiantes y (4) mantenimiento del contexto profesional con el participante. A pesar de estas dificultades, todos los encuestados manifestaron que aprecian el ejercicio de administrar la prueba de Rorschach, que perciben como un primer paso hacia la práctica clínica. Con base en estos resultados, se formulan sugerencias pedagógicas para ayudar a los estudiantes que están aprendiendo la prueba de Rorschach a superarlos lo más rápido posible y a participar con placer e interés en el proceso de administración del examen.
要 約
資格を持った心理学者や学生ロールシャッハ・テストの独創性とそこから得られる洞察を高く評価している。このテストが理論的に理解され、臨床的に習得されなければ、それは効果的ではなくなってします。これは、その有効性と解釈可能性に依存する手続き過程を統合することから始まる。手続き過程には、技術的、認知的、感情的なレベルでの微妙で複雑な手順が含まれている。この研究の目的は、心理学を専攻する学生が初めてロールシャッハを受けた時に経験した困難を示し、分析することであった。学生の特定のニーズに合わせて指導を調整するための提案が提供されている。方法論は、2つの異なる段階から構成されている。1つ目は、調査の目的で作成されたアンケートの分析で、学生の困難を特定して分類することを目的としている。これはフランスの心理学部の3年生で、18歳から24歳の女性を中心とした64名の参加者の回答に基づいている。2つ目は、アンケートから得られた結果の理解を深めることを目的とした。同じ学校から募集した3年生235名から、「ロールシャッハを初めて受ける際に、どのような困難に直面しましたか」という質問に対する回答を書面で回収した。データ分析は、Reinert法に基づいて、Iramuteq ソフトウエアを用いて行われた。その結果、ロールシャッハ実施に関連した4つの主要な困難が浮き彫りになった。(1) 技術的な管理、(2) 参加者との関係力動の管理、(3) 学生の感情コントロール、(4) 参加者との専門的な枠組みの維持、である。これらの困難にも関わらず、すべての回答者は、ロールシャッハ・テストを実施したことを評価しており、臨床実習への第一歩であると認識していた。これらの結果に基づいて、ロールシャッハ・テストを学習する学生が、できるだけ早くこの困難を克服し、テストの実施過程に喜びと興味を持って研鑽を積むことができるような教育的な提案を行った。
