Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 44(3), 2007 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pits.20223

CURRENT STATUS OF RORSCHACH ASSESSMENT:

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST
TAMMY L. HUGHES
Duquesne University
CARL B. GACONO
Private Practice, Austin, Texas
PATRICK F. OWEN
Kershaw County School District, Camden, South Carolina

In this article we examine the current status of Rorschach assessment. School psychologists are
provided with an introduction to the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM), the types of information
that the test provides, and guidelines for evaluating the RIM. We also address criticisms that have
served to discourage the use of the RIM. When administered, coded, and interpreted within
guidelines provided by Exners Comprehensive System, the Rorschach clearly meets ethical and
professional standards for psychological test usage. The RIM can provide unique and important
information concerning the emotional and social functioning of children and adolescents that
aids in developing individualized educational programming including behavior intervention
plans. 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) provides important information for understanding the
emotional, social, and cognitive functioning (e.g., Exner, 2003; Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001;
Weiner, Spielberger, & Abeles, 2002) of children and adolescents (Exner & Erdberg, 2005; Lunardi,
1999; Pierce & Penman, 1998; Socket, 1998; Yalof, Abraham, Domingos, & Socket, 2001). Although
the Rorschach is frequently used by clinical psychologists (43%), less than 24% of school psy-
chologists surveyed utilize the instrument (Stinnett, Havey, & Oehler-Stinnett, 1994).
The infrequent use of the RIM by school psychologists may be attributable to several causes.
First, cognitive ability and academic achievement testing is the school psychologists most com-
mon evaluative role and children who have learning disabilities (particularly reading disabilities)
constitute the highest percentage of those found to be eligible for special education services. In
such cases the in-depth personality assessment provided by the RIM is rarely required. Because
school psychology training assessment curriculum programs reflect this trend, adequate RIM train-
ing may not be widely available to school psychologists. Second, when school psychologists are
requested to provide social-emotional assessments, evaluators rely almost exclusively on inter-
views, behavior rating scales, family and developmental histories, and classroom observations
(Stinnett et al., 1994). This practice indicates a lack of consensus about the value of personality
assessment, and of the Rorschach in particular. Third, school psychologists may be reluctant to use
the Rorschach because of recent critiques in the professional literature (Gacono, 2002a, 2002b,
2002c; Gacono, Evans, & Viglione, 2002). Many of these critiques, however, have been found to
lack scientific rigor, to contain unwarranted criticisms about the RIMs psychometric properties,
to assume erroneously that Rorschach interpretation must be wed to psychodynamic theory, or are
based on a limited understanding of the way assessment works (Gacono, Loving, & Bodholdt,

This article is based in part on a presentation to the Trainers of School Psychologists at the 2003 annual meeting of the
National Association of School Psychologists in Toronto. Carl B. Gacono is in private practice in Austin, Texas. Patrick F.
Owen is a school psychologist in Kershaw County School District in Camden, South Carolina.
Correspondence to: Tammy L. Hughes, Department of Counseling, Psychology, and Special Education, Duquesne
University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282. E-mail: HughesT@duq.edu

281
282 Hughes, Gacono, and Owen

2001).1 Finally, equating the RIM with other projective measures that lack established reliable
scoring systems and normative data may contribute to its infrequent use by school psychologists.
In fact, the RIM is a performance-based assessment measure that psychometrically compares
quite favorably to self-report measures such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI-2; Meyer et al., 2001; Gacono, Evans, & Kaser-Boyd, in press).
In this article we (1) provide an introduction to the Rorschach and the rich data that it pro-
vides, (2) provide information concerning the Rorschachs reliability and validity, (3) discuss legal
and ethical guidelines pertaining to the use of the Rorschach, and (4) discuss how the use of
Rorschach data can directly aid school psychologists in their roles of assessment and intervention
in the schools.

Description and Nature of the Rorschach

In clinical practice the RIM is routinely utilized in child and adolescent evaluations. An
overwhelming majority (90%) of clinical psychologists believe that clinical students should be
competent in Rorschach administration and interpretation (Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, &
Hallmark, 1995). Rorschach assessment in schools, however, is not yet well established. This
underutilization may, in part, stem from the school psychologists unfamiliarity with the test.
The RIM involves little projection. The RIM is essentially a problem-solving, perceptual-
association task that provides information about the psychology underlying a persons behavior
through description and understanding of a person as an individual (Exner, 2003). It comprises 10
cards, each of which contains an ambiguous inkblot with varying achromatic and/or chromatic
coloring. The RIM cards are administered in a standardized, sequential format by an examiner to
a single subject. The administration of the RIM involves a free association phase followed by an
inquiry phase. When handed a card during free association, the subject is asked, What might this
be? The examinees responses are recorded verbatim during this phase. After all the cards have
been presented, the tester asks What made it look like that? and Where on the card [location]?
the subject sees the percept.
After RIM administration each response is scored (or coded) on several primary dimensions
that address both perceptual aspects of the responses and the ways the responses are verbalized by
the examinee. The scores (or codes) for each response are used to compute various ratios and
frequencies, which, in turn, provide information about aspects of the individuals cognitive, emo-
tional, and social functioning. This process is comparable to other performance-based measures
such as behavioral rating or adaptive behavior scales. For example, some students may have
several elevated scales (compared to those of clinical and/or nonclinical groups) and others may
have none. The elevated scales (or clusters) provide information for organizing and giving direc-
tion to understanding the persons psychology.
In regard to its interpretive yield, the RIM, when administered and interpreted through the
Comprehensive System (Exner, 2003), provides insight into the multidimensional aspects of a
students personality and does so through eight primary clusters (Exner, 2001): (1) affect describes
the degree to which emotion is a core element in decision making, the frequency and intensity of
emotional states, the extent to which emotions are processed, the way they are modulated and
whether unusual emotional sets are used for interpreting the environment; (2) capacity for control

1
Unfortunately, large numbers of both undergraduate and graduate psychology students are first exposed to the
Rorschach in academic settings where balanced critiques of the test are not offered; this practice has both created and
perpetuated a negative view of the test and the impression of controversy (Gacono et al., 2002; Masling, 1997).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Rorschach for the School Psychologist 283

and stress tolerance describes the individuals capacity to form decisions and implement deliberate
behaviors; (3) interpersonal perception and behavior relates to the way the individual perceives
others and behaves in various interpersonal situations; (4) self-perception conveys the individuals
self-image and degree of self-involvement; (5) situation related stress identifies the degree to
which the individual is experiencing stress from current, specific events. Three clusters involve
cognitive processing: (6) information processing describes the perceptual accuracy for the recorded
response; (7) cognitive mediation describes the logic and conventionality of a response; and (8)
ideation describes the cognitive output (e.g., synthesized and adequately organized or disorga-
nized, distorted, poorly connected to reality, etc.). Although the actual content (e.g., I see a bat)
of responses remains important, content is actually secondary to the structural components noted
in these eight clusters (Rose, Kaser-Boyd, & Maloney, 2001).

Constraining Myths

Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the RIM also entails confronting erroneous
beliefs that have been associated with its use. The first is that administering the test takes too much
time. Although novice examiners typically take more time to administer and score the RIM than
advanced examiners, unlike for many self-report measures, it is the skill level of the examiner
rather than anything inherent in the test that determines administration and scoring time (Gacono,
DeCato, Brabender, Goertzel, 1997). On average an experienced examiner takes about 90 minutes
to administer and score a Rorschach including the inputting of raw data through scoring software
(e.g., ROR-SCAN, Rorschach Interpretive Assistant Program).
A second concern also relates to the first concern: that the RIM is too expensive in terms of
time-to-benefit ratio. The school psychologist must, however, carefully weigh the importance of
RIM data (including information regarding the persons attitudes and behaviors while completing
the test) when deciding on this cost-benefit issue. With experience, the RIM can be administered
in an efficient manner. As part of a multimethod assessment strategy the value of the Rorschach is
considerable. Although a single method of data collection (e.g., behavioral rating scales) may
indeed be less time-intensive and cost-intensive at the outset, it may also lead to a narrow and
limited understanding of the individual (Meyer et al., 2001; Myers & Winters, 2002), for which
subsequent expanded and costly data collections may be required (Meyer et al., 2001). Performance-
based measures, such as the RIM, add incrementally to self-report data (Gacono et al., 2002).
Stricker and Gold (1999) stress the value of both nomothetic (normative) and idiographic (the-
matic) approaches to personality assessment and suggest that RIM information is more useful for
understanding automatic processes (unconscious), longitudinal, and structural dimensions of func-
tioning. Clearly, a thoughtful and comprehensive assessment can better serve the student and
reduce assessment costs (Mattlar, 2004).
A third misconception is that a psychodynamic orientation is essential to RIM interpretation.
This is absolutely false. Although the psychodynamic community did embrace the Rorschach at
the time of its introduction in the United States (Costantino, Flanagan, & Malgady, 1995), Herman
Rorschach did not base the test on a psychodynamic perspective. As mentioned, the Rorschach is
a problem-solving perceptual-association test (Exner, 1993), and the majority of its interpretative
postulates are derived from the way the child solves the problem of what the blot could be.
Within this context, many theoretical interpretations are available to the examiner.2

2
The exception is radical behaviorism where personality is not acknowledged or if acknowledged is immeasurable
(Exner, 2003, p. 32).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

284 Hughes, Gacono, and Owen

Psychometric Properties of Exners Comprehensive System

Literature in all areas of social science assessment produces mixed findings (Wundt, 1893).
Mixed results occur for many reasons including nonstandardized administrations, comparison of
ill-defined populations, or comparison of groups that are not indicated for comparison. The RIM
literature, as has all assessment research, has suffered these difficulties. Early research with the
RIM yielded varied results from reliability and validity studies that were caused in part by the fact
that there were five separate scoring systems used. In response to these problems some authors
have questioned the utility of RIM (Dawes, 1994; Hunsley & Bailey, 1999; Wood, Nezworski, &
Stejskal, 1996) and even with the substantive improvements of the Comprehensive System, others
have given it only tempered support (Garb, Florio, & Grove, 1998).
Recent well-executed research studies, however, have provided substantial empirical support
for the RIM and the Comprehensive System variables (Ganellen, 1996; Viglione, 1999; Viglione
& Hilsenroth, 2001; Weiner et al., 2002). On the basis of the most empirically supported features
of the five existing scoring systems (Klopfer, Beck, Hertz, Piotrowski, and Rapoport-Schaefer)
and an extensive review of over 20 years of empirical research with the test, the Comprehensive
System has undergone three revisions; better defined scoring categories and numerous improve-
ments of the system have resulted. The Comprehensive System workbook, now in its fifth edition,
provides a normative base for children 617 years with comparative data from a sample of 1,390
nonpatient children and adolescents stratified for age, gender, race, geographic representation (i.e.,
urban, suburban, rural), and socioeconomic status (Exner, 1995, 2001).
Well-trained examiners can reliably score both high and low base rate variables of the Com-
prehensive System (Gacono et al., 2002; Meyer & Viglione, in press). Kappa (interrater reliability)
and interclass correlation (ICC; agreement between repeated measures) studies are in the good
(greater than .60) to excellent (greater than.75.80s) range (Gacono et al., 2002; Garb, 1998;
Meyer et al., 2002; Shrout & Fliess, 1979). Meta-analyses of interrater reliability studies also
report excellent support with a mean estimated kappa of .86 (Meyer, 1997).
Validity studies show similar support for the test as recent original meta-analyses provide
support for the RIM (Atkinson, 1988; Atkinson, Quarrington, Alp, & Cyr, 1986; Bornstein, 1996,
1999; Hiller, Rosenthal, Bornstein, Berry, & Brunell-Neuleib, 1999; Parker, Hanson, & Hunsley,
1988). Hiller and associates (1999), after correcting some of the problems in earlier meta-
analyses, found that the RIM indices have an unweighted mean effect size of .29 as compared to
those of the MMPI, which was found to have a mean effect size of .30; both findings are at the high
end of the effect size range for personality tests. Consistently with the uses of both these instru-
ments, the MMPI was found to have larger validity coefficients than the RIM for studies using
psychiatric diagnoses and self-report measures as criterion variables, whereas the RIM had larger
validity coefficients than the MMPI for studies using objective criterion variables (Exner, 2003).
Meyer and Archer (2001) found validity to be similar among the RIM, MMPI, and IQ measures.
Also, the RIM has been found to meet the standard for use in both clinical and research settings
(Piotrowski, 1996; Piotrowski & Keller, 1989; Piotrowski, Sherry, & Keller, 1985).
The RIM is appropriate with minority populations. RIM variables tend not to show an ethnic
bias. Research supporting these conclusions includes studies reporting no mean differences between
racial or ethnic groups on RIM variables (Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001; Weiner et al., 2002), and
principal-component analyses reveal no evidence of ethnic bias in the RIMs internal structure
(Meyer, 2002).
Although the psychometric properties of the RIM have been carefully discussed in the pro-
fessional literature (Society for Personality Assessment, 2005), there continue to be vocal detrac-
tors who routinely attack the test. Although legitimate criticism and suggestions can and should be

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Rorschach for the School Psychologist 285

made concerning all personality measures, these criticisms should avoid presenting unbalanced, emo-
tionally charged positions that lack scientific rigor. Critiques from Lilienfeld, Wood, and Garb (2001)
and Wood, Nezworski, Lilienfeld, and Garb (2003), for example, have evaluated the RIM as if the
test data are of the same variety as those obtained from a forced-choice measure, a process that is
equivalent to comparing apples and oranges. Gacono and colleagues (2002) has also noted the eth-
ical and moral language found in some of these writings, the tendency for some detractors to present
contrasting evidence on the level of moral imperatives (Gacono et al., 2002, p. 35) or in the nature
of legal briefs rather than joining in scientific debate (Gacono et al., in press; Weiner, 2001).
Rorschach information helps anticipate real life behaviors in children who have emotional or
behavioral disorders, in that the content of the individuals decision-making repertoire is reflected
in the assessment data (Gacono & Meloy, 1994; Lunardi, 1999; Smith, Gacono, & Kaufman,
1997; Weber, Meloy, & Gacono, 1992). Empirical evidence indicates that the RIMs contribution
to the understanding of childhood difficulties is extensive, including understanding negative affec-
tivity in children diagnosed as emotionally disturbed (Hughes, Miller, & Morine, 2005), differ-
ences in aggressive behaviors in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic conduct disordered children
(Gacono & Meloy, 1994; Loving & Russel, 2000; Smith et al., 1997), the way childhood delin-
quency is related to adolescent and adulthood delinquency (Janson & Stattin, 2003), and the role
of attachment and anxiety in conduct or dysthymic disordered adolescents (Weber et al., 1992).
Rorschach information provides an idiographic understanding of children useful for developing
individual education programs (Pierce & Penman, 1998; Socket, 1998) as well as information
useful in the consideration of intervention outcomes (Stokes et al., 2003). Incremental validity
links RIM data to intervention planning (Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001) and more socially valid
interventions (Bihlar & Carlsson, 2000).
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The legal and ethical use of tests in general and the RIM in particular has been addressed by
a number of authors. McCann (1998), the Society for Personality Assessment (2005), and Gacono
and coworkers (2002) have addressed the appropriate use of the RIM and its interpretation through
Exners Comprehensive System and have found that the RIM allows the school psychologist to
meet the most current ethical and legal standards. Test reliability and validity standards (Jacob &
Hartshorne, 2003) are also addressed through the school psychologists multimethod evaluation
practice. Familiarity with the current literature and cross-validation of findings, within a multi-
method assessment model, can further serve to meet these goals.
School psychologists must have adequate training for all assessments (Jacob & Hartshorne,
2003), including the Rorschach. Rorschach assessment should only be used by practitioners who
have received verifiable training, which should focus upon cautious, considered, and perhaps
conservative interpretation of the data. Interpretation of the RIM should always be integrated with
real world behavior.
The RIM is widely used in legal settings (Gacono et al., in press) and can also provide critical
support for the school psychologist in court and/or school legal proceedings such as due process
hearings. Evidence of admissibility in legal settings is noted in a 1996 survey, which revealed that
of 7,934 recent federal and state court cases during which psychologists presented RIM testimony,
in only one case was the testimony excluded (Weiner, Exner, & Sciara, 1996). When testimony
was excluded, it was not because of the RIMs psychometric properties but rather because of the
psychologists use of the data. Similarly, Meloy, Hansen, and Weiners (1997) review of 247
federal, state, and military appellate court cases found that in only 26 cases was the RIM testimony
challenged. Of those cases in which testimony was excluded, it was not because of the psychometric
properties of the test but rather because of the psychologists interpretations (e.g., statements

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

286 Hughes, Gacono, and Owen

irrelevant to the legal issue before the court). When used appropriately the RIM is both admissible
(McCann, 1998) and well accepted for federal, state, military, and appellate court proceedings. In
light of these findings, it is reasonable to conclude that the RIM is also appropriate for legal
proceedings in schools (Yalof et al., 2001).

Rorschach Assessment and Intervention Planning

Once a test proves reliable and valid, the questions most relevant for the school psychologist
become, What does this test contribute to assessment (Klieger, 2001) and how can it be helpful?
For a child for whom emotional and/or social factors are contributing to and maintaining
educational difficulties, RIM information can elucidate the processes of decision making that
generate behavior. Particularly when viewed within the context of a students behavioral adjust-
ment and family and developmental history, Rorschach assessment can provide information regard-
ing multiple aspects of an individuals personality functioning and serve to identify effective
interventions (Bihlar & Carlsson, 2000).
Rorschach data utilized as part of a multimethod assessment strategy inform the clinicians
understanding in several ways. First, RIM variables provide a context for understanding the infor-
mation obtained from self-report measures. For example, several reasonable interventions could
be considered for a child who is not completing school work (Miller, Tansy, & Hughes, 1998) and
who also has an elevated attitude toward school subscale score on the Behavior Assessment
System for Children2 (BASC-2; Reynolds, & Kamphaus, 2004). The Rorschach may highlight,
for example, that the childs capacity for stress tolerance is being exceeded and is thus interfering
with the childs ability to implement deliberate behaviors. With this knowledge, interventions can
be addressed to lowering the childs level of stress.
Second, RIM assessment can provide an efficient way to collect a standardized behavior
sample outside the interview (Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001), a process often preferable to simply
observing a students completing a questionnaire (Gacono et al., 2002), or obtaining parent or
teacher opinions of the students behavior and emotional state. Behavioral observation during
administration allows the examiner to determine how the child conceptualizes and approaches his
or her environment and provides an opportunity to see at which point the students processing
breaks down. This process is conceptually parallel to the practice commonly found in cognitive
and neuropsychological assessment and analogous to the approach of performance-based assess-
ment delineated by Teglasi (1998). Furthermore, it is this particular approach, absent in self-report
measures, that adds incrementally to the assessment process. Self-report measures the way respon-
dents see themselves or like to be seen by others, as opposed to the assessment of affect, behavior,
or skill in situ provided through Rorschach assessment.
A third advantage of Rorschach assessment is that the ambiguous nature of the testing stimuli
allows for multiple responses. In contrast to self-report measures, Rorschach variables are resis-
tant to respondents efforts to minimize difficulties or present themselves in an overly positive
light (Bornstein, Rossner, Hill, & Stepanian, 1994; Brems & Johnson, 1991; Ganellen, 1994;
Harder, 1984; Shedler, Mayman, & Manis, 1993). This aspect of testing is particularly important
because examinees do not have an obvious way to malinger or fake responses.
A fourth advantage relates to the way information from the test helps the psychologist target
interventions. Pathogenic process is the understanding of the ways children within the same diag-
nostic category develop and maintain symptoms that originate from different backgrounds or
circumstances (Exner, 2003; Shirk & Russell, 1996). For children to derive maximal benefit from
treatment, intervention selection should be based on the childs specific pathogenic process rather
than a simple matching of the diagnosis to name brand therapies such as social skills training,
cognitive restructuring, or behavior modification (Shirk & Russell, 1996). When looking at group

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Rorschach for the School Psychologist 287

data, a therapy may have been shown to work (on average) with children who have a certain
diagnosis. However, a review of the literature shows that what works best does so for a specific
child if the treatment matches the childs pathogenic process. Treating a child who has depressive
symptoms through a cognitive intervention approach, for example, is most helpful if the childs
cognitions have developed and maintained the depressive symptomatology. It is by no means
certain, however, that a child experiencing depressive symptoms will have cognitive influences
directing the depression. Although self-defeating cognitions may indeed be noted, they may very
well be secondary to the true origins of the depression. The school psychologist who limits assess-
ment to self-report data may fail to recognize the complexity of the individual and thus limit the
effectiveness of the interventions. Levant (2003) has also addressed this concern and suggests that
paradoxically the effort to match treatment to diagnosis without first capturing the uniqueness of
the child ultimately limits the potential of efforts to demonstrate that various interventions could
be also be effective. Rorschach variables add to our understanding of the entire person, his or her
motives, and provide nomothetically based information beyond what is available from diagnosis,
self-report, and clinical interview (Gacono et al., 2002).
The practical applications of Rorschach assessment data are myriad. Questions pertaining to
eligibility determinations and least restrictive environment can be aided by the use of Rorschach
data. For example, changing a students special education service delivery model from a self-
contained to a resource setting entails a number of considerations, not the least of which is an
assessment of the childs ability to handle increased stress levels and to maintain appropriate peer
relationships. Rorschach data interpreted through the Comprehensive System (Exner, 2003) can
provide important information about issues of control and stress tolerance, affective features and
interpersonal perception, and so forth, which can assist the decision-making process.
Rorschach data could also be of assistance to IEP teams concerning where to place the empha-
sis in the development of school-based Behavior Plans. Identifying a child who is experiencing dif-
ficulty with his thinking in social interactions, for example, can guide interventions that target this
issue. Impaired social cognition in an aggressively noncomplaint, excessively self-focused child will
require a different type of intervention from that indicated for a child who has impaired social cog-
nition who is emotionally distraught, and is experiencing cognitive disorganization and low self-
esteem stemming from a feeling of emotional loss (Gacono & Hughes, 2004). Rorschach data help
the school psychologist make these differentiations and provides insight into the unique psycholog-
ical processes contributing to behaviors. This information can then be used directly to provide impor-
tant feedback to the child, the childs parents, teachers, and school administrators.
The school psychologist confronted with a disruptive child without a means to assess the
childs experience is clearly limited in his or her effectiveness. A recent experience of one of the
authors (Patrick Owen) came from a distressed special education teacher; it involved determining
the reasons, causes and description of behavior for an emotionally explosive student who is
disrespectful of his teachers, disrupts his classroom, and threatens bodily harm to peers, all seem-
ingly without remorse. The question What sets him off? is cardinal and one to which Rorschach
data in combination with other assessment data could provide important answers concerning the
childs personality vulnerabilities. In the evaluation of this student, for example, a multimethod
assessment strategy would be greatly enhanced by specific varieties of Rorschach data. Specifi-
cally, information about the students affective functioning, including openness to processing emo-
tion and the ability to modulate emotion (complexity of determinants, affective ratio, degree and
nature of color responses), along with his capacity for control and stress tolerance (use of form as
a determinant, degree and nature of inanimate movement), perception of interpersonal relation-
ships (human percepts, hypervigilance, active-passive and cooperative movement responses) while
considering situation-related stress (use of shading determinants, movement and color determinants)

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

288 Hughes, Gacono, and Owen

would inform the context of the behavior. This information describes the psychological experience
that should be considered along with the childs observed and reported behavior.
Perhaps no situation in which insight into a childs behavior and its bearing on a childs
special education status is more important than that which arises during Manifestation Determi-
nations. During these special IEP meetings questions are posed concerning a childs disruptive
behavior and its relationship (or lack of relationship) to the childs identified disability. The degree
to which, for example, a child misperceives events, confuses fantasy with reality, and is vulnerable
to emotional arousing situations is important when an IEP team is addressing the issue of whether
or not the students disability impairs his or her ability to control the behavior that is subject to
disciplinary action. Consider, for example, a child who has an emotional disturbance who is
involved in a physical altercation. The Rorschach can assess the cognitive processing style (extent
of form dominated responses, complexity, accuracy and flexibility of thinking, and reality testing)
along with the way the student manages emotionally charged situations (affective controls together
with the nature and extent and of emotional resources). Specifically, Rorschach can provide infor-
mation about the nature of the relationship between emotional and cognitive processing for this
child to help clarify the manifest behavioral dyscontrol. This information helps the team to clarify
the ways the childs identified emotional disturbance may or may not be related to the involvement
in the physical altercation.
Rorschach assessment is a rich source from which to generate hypotheses regarding a childs
behavior. The RIMs contribution to the understanding of an individuals unique blend of difficul-
ties, traits, and conflicts is invaluable to the assessment process. It provides types of information found
in few, if any, assessment procedures (Exner, 2003). In a time when the behavioral management of
children is increasingly giving way to psychopharmacological intervention, RIM assessment can serve
to reorient professionals to the childs individual psychology in order to target interventions to max-
imize educational gains. The nomothetic information and idiographic information derived via the
RIM provide a way to capture the uniqueness of the individual (Exner, 2003).

Conclusions
The Rorschach and Exners Comprehensive System meet the current ethical and legal stan-
dards for tests (Jacob & Hartshorne, 2003; McCann, 1998; Society for Personality Assessment,
2005). The RIM is psychometrically stable and valid when used in the manner for which it was
designed (Piotrowski, 1996; Piotrowski & Keller, 1989; Piotrowski, Sherry, & Keller, 1985).
Rorschach information contributes substantially to guiding interventions for children whom school
psychologists serve (Janson & Stattin, 2003; Lunardi, 1999; Pierce & Penman, 1998; Smith et al.,
1997; Socket, 1998; Stokes et al., 2003; Weber et al., 1992).
It is not enough to know that a child evidences an exceptional characteristic, behavior disor-
der, or special education disability. Particularly with difficult, refractory cases, school psycholo-
gists need to understand the personality characteristics of the child and the way those characteristics
impact the childs social and emotional functioning in schools. Within a multimethod strategy,
personality assessment in general (Gacono & Hughes, 2004), and the Rorschach in particular,
provide important data for a thorough understanding of the child. The use of Rorschach data can
clearly serve school psychologists effectively in their attempts to help children to become suc-
cessful in school.

References
Atkinson, L. (1988). The comparative validities of the Rorschach and MMPI. Canadian Psychology, 27, 238347.
Atkinson, L., Quarrington, B., Alp, I.E., & Cyr, J.J. (1986). Rorschach validity: An empirical approach to the literature.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 360362.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Rorschach for the School Psychologist 289

Bihlar, B., & Carlsson, A. (2000). An exploratory study of agreement between therapists goals and patients problems
revealed by Rorschach. Psychotherapy Research, 10, 196205.
Bornstein, R.F. (1996). Construct validity of the Rorschach Oral Dependency Scale: 19671995. Psychological Assess-
ment, 8, 200205.
Bornstein, R.F. (1999). Criterion validity of objective and projective dependency tests: A meta-analytic assessment of
behavioral prediction. Psychological Assessment, 11, 4857.
Bornstein, R.F., Rossner, S.C., Hill, E.L., & Stepanian, M.L. (1994). Face validity and fake ability of objective and
projective measures of dependency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 363386.
Brems, C., & Johnson, M.E. (1991). Subtle-obvious scales of the MMPI: Indicators of profile validity in psychiatric
population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 56, 536544.
Costantino, G., Flanagan, R., & Malgady, R. (1995). The history of the Rorschach: Overcoming bias in multicultural
projective assessment. In I.B. Weiner (Ed.), Rorschachiana. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.
Dawes, R.M. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press.
Exner, J.E. (1993). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Basic foundations and principles of interpretation (Vol. 1, 3rd
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Exner, J.E. (1995). A Rorschach workbook for the comprehensive system (4th ed.). Asheville, NC: Rorschach Workshops.
Exner, J.E. (2001). A Rorschach workbook for the comprehensive system (5th ed.). Asheville, NC: Rorschach Workshops.
Exner, J.E. (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Basic foundations and principles of interpretation (Vol. 1, 4th
ed.). New York: Wiley.
Exner, J.E., & Erdberg, P. (2005). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Advanced interpretation (Vol. 2, 3rd ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gacono, C., DeCato, C., Brabender, V., & Goertzel, T. (1997). Vitamin C or pure C: The Rorschach of Linus Pauling. In
J.R. Meloy, M. Acklin, C.B. Gacano, C. Peterson, & J. Murray (Eds.), Contemporary Rorschach interpretation.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gacono, C.B. (2002a). Guest editorial: Why there is a need for the personality assessment of offenders. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 271273.
Gacono, C.B. (2002b). Introduction to a special series: Psychological testing in forensic settings. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46, 274280.
Gacono, C.B. (2002c). Introduction to a special series: Forensic psychodiagnostic testing. Journal of Forensic Psychology
Practice, 2, 110.
Gacono, C.B., Evans, F.B., & Kaser-Boyd, N. (in press). The handbook of forensic Rorschach psychology. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gacono, C.B., Evans, F.B., & Viglione, D.J. (2002). The Rorschach in forensic practice. Journal of Forensic Psychology
Practice, 2, 3353.
Gacono, C.B., & Hughes, T.L. (2004). Differentiating emotional disturbance from social maladjustment: Assessing psy-
chopathy in aggressive youth. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 849860.
Gacono, C.B., Loving, J., & Bodholdt, R. (2001). The Rorschach and psychopathy: Toward a more accurate understanding
of the research findings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 1638.
Gacono, C.B., & Meloy, J.R. (1994). The Rorschach assessment of aggressive and psychopathic personalities. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ganellen, R.J. (1994). Attempting to conceal psychological disturbance: MMPI defensive sets and the Rorschach. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 63, 423 437.
Ganellen, R.J. (1996). Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of the MMPI, MCMI-II, and Rorschach: A review. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 67, 219243.
Garb, H.N. (1998). Studying the clinician: Judgment research and psychological assessment. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Garb, H.N., Florio, C.M., & Grove, W.M. (1998). The validity of the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory: Results from meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 9, 402 404.
Harder, D.W. (1984). Character style of the defensively high self-esteem man. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 2635.
Hiller, J.B., Rosenthal, R., Bornstein, R.F., Berry, D.T., & Brunell-Neuleib, S. (1999). A comparative meta-analysis of
Rorschach and MMPI validity. Psychological Assessment, 11, 278296.
Hughes, T.L., Miller, J.A., & Morine, K.A. (2005). Indicators of negative affectivity in childrens Rorschach responses.
South African Rorschach Journal, 2, 4552.
Hunsley, J., & Bailey, J.M. (1999). Whither the Rorschach? An analysis of the evidence. Psychological Assessment, 13,
472 485.
Jacob, S., & Hartshorne, T.S. (2003). Ethics and law for school psychologists (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

290 Hughes, Gacono, and Owen

Janson, H., & Stattin, H. (2003). Prediction of adolescent and adult delinquency from childhood Rorschach ratings. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 8, 51 63.
Kleiger, J.H. (2001). Projective testing with children and adolescents. In C.E. Walker & M.C. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of
clinical child psychology (3rd ed., pp. 172189). New York: Wiley.
Levant, R. (2003). The empirically-validated treatments movement: A practitioners perspective. Psychotherapy Bulletin,
38, 3639.
Lilienfeld, S.O., Wood, J.N., & Garb, H.N. (2001). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in
the Public Interest, 1, 27 66.
Loving, J., & Russell, W.F. (2000). Selected Rorschach variables of psychopathic juvenile offenders. Journal of Personality
Assessment 75, 126142.
Lunardi, P.M. (1999). Rorschach responses of male adolescents with learning and emotional disability. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Immaculata College.
Masling, J.M. (1997). On the nature and utility of projective tests and objective tests. Journal of Personality Assessment,
69, 257270.
Mattlar, C. (2004). The Rorschach comprehensive system is reliable, valid and cost-effective. Rorschachiana, 26, 158186.
McCann, J.T. (1998). Defending the Rorschach in court: An analysis of admissibility using legal and professional stan-
dards. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 125144.
Meloy, J.R., Hansen, T.L., & Weiner, L.B. (1997). Authority of the Rorschach: Legal citations during the past 50 years.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 53 62.
Meyer, G.J. (1997). Assessing reliability: Critical correlations for a critical examination of the Rorschach Comprehensive
System. Psychological Assessment, 9, 480 489.
Meyer, G.J. (2002). Exploring possible ethnic differences and bias in the Rorschach Comprehensive System. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 78, 104129.
Meyer, G.J., & Archer, R.P. (2001). The hard science of Rorschach research: What do we know and where do we go?
Psychological Assessment, 13, 486502.
Meyer, G.J., Finn, S.E., Eyde, L., Kay, G.G., Moreland, K.L., Dies, R.R., et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psycho-
logical assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128165.
Meyer, G.J., Hilsenroth, M.J., Baxter, D., Exner, J.E., Fowler, C.J., Piers, C.C., et al. (2002). An examination of inter-rater
reliability for scoring the Rorschach Comprehensive System in eight data sets. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78,
219274.
Meyer, G.J., & Viglione, D. (in press). The scientific status of the Rorschach. In Gacono, C.B., Evans, F.B., & Kaser-Boyd,
N. (Eds.), The handbook of forensic Rorschach psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Miller, J.A., Tansy, M., & Hughes, T.L. (1998). Functional behavioral assessment: The link between problem behavior and
effective intervention in schools. Current Issues in Education. Retrieved from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/
Myers, K., & Winters, N.C. (2002). Ten-year review of rating scales: 1. Overview of scale functioning, psychometric
properties, and selection. Journal of American Academic Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 114122.
Parker, K.C., Hanson, R.K., & Hunsley, J. (1988). MMPI, Rorschach, and WAIS: A meta-analytic comparison of reliability,
stability and validity. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 367373.
Pierce, G.E., & Penman, P. (1998). Rorschach psychological characteristics of students with serious emotional distur-
bance. California School Psychologist, 3, 35 42.
Piotrowski, C. (1996). The status of Exners Comprehensive System in contemporary research. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 82, 13411342.
Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J.W. (1989). Use of assessment in mental health clinics and services. Psychological Reports, 64,
1298.
Piotrowski, C., Sherry, D., & Keller, J.W. (1985). Psychodiagnostic test usage: A survey of the Society for Personality
Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 115119.
Reynolds, C.R., & Kamphaus, R.W. (2004). Behavior Assessment Scale for Children (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: Amer-
ican Guidance Service.
Rose, T., Kaser-Boyd, N., & Maloney, M. (2001). Essentials of Rorschach assessment. New York: Wiley.
Shedler, J., Mayman, M., & Manis, M. (1993). The illusion of mental health. American Psychologist, 48, 11171131.
Shirk, S.R., & Russell, R.L. (1996). Change processes in child psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Shrout, P.E., & Fliess, J.L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86,
420 428.
Smith, A.M., Gacono, C.B., & Kaufman, L. (1997). A Rorschach comparison of psychopathic and non-psychopathic
conduct disordered adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 239300.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

 Rorschach for the School Psychologist 291

Society for Personality Assessment. (2005). The status of the Rorschach in clinical and forensic practice: An official
statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85,
219237.
Socket, B. (1998). The Rorschach and the traditional psychoeducational battery. Paper presented at the Midwinter Meeting
of the Society for Personality Assessment, Boston.
Stinnett, T.A., Havey, J.M., & Oehler-Stinnett, J. (1994). Current test usage by practicing school psychologists: A national
survey. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 331.
Stokes, J.M., Pogge, D.L., Powell-Lunder, J., Ward, A.W., Bilginer, L., & DeLuca, V. (2003). The Rorschach ego impair-
ment index: Prediction of treatment outcomes in a child psychiatric population. Journal of Personality Assessment,
81, 1119.
Stricker, G., & Gold, J.R. (1999). The Rorschach: Toward a nomothetically based, idiographically applicable configura-
tional model. Psychological Assessment, 11, 240250.
Teglasi, H. (1998). Assessment of schema and problem solving strategies with projective techniques. In C.R. Reynolds
(Ed.), Handbook of clinical psychology: Vol. 4. Assessment. New York: Elsevier.
Viglione, D., & Hilsenroth, M. (2001). The Rorschach: Facts, fictions, and future. Psychological Assessment, 13, 452 471.
Viglione, D.J. (1999). A review of recent research addressing the utility of the Rorschach. Psychological Assessment, 11,
251265.
Watkins, C.E., Campbell, V.L., Nieberding, R., & Hallmark, R. (1995). Contemporary practice of psychological assess-
ment by clinical psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 54 60.
Weber, C.A., Meloy, J.R., Gacono, C.B. (1992). A Rorschach study of attachment and anxiety in inpatient conduct disor-
dered and dysthymic adolescents. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 1626.
Weiner, I.B. (2001) Advancing the science of psychological assessment: The Rorschach Inkblot Method as exemplar.
Psychological Assessment, 13, 423 432.
Weiner, I.B., Exner, J., & Sciara, A. (1996). Is the Rorschach welcome in the courtroom? Journal of Personality, 67(2),
422 424.
Weiner, I.B., Spielberger, C.D., & Abeles, N. (2002). Scientific psychology and the Rorschach Inkblot Method. Clinical
Psychologist, 55, 712.
Wood, J.M., Nezworski, M.T., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Garb, H.N. (2003). Whats wrong with the Rorschach? Science confronts
the controversial inkblot test. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wood, J.M., Nezworski, M.T., & Stejskal, W.J. (1996). The comprehensive system for the Rorschach: A critical examina-
tion. Psychological Science, 7, 310.
Wundt, W. (1893). Logik. Zweiter Band: Vol. 2. Methodenlehre (2nd rev. ed.). Stuttgart, Germany: Verlag Enke.
Yalof, J., Abraham, P. Domingos, B., & Socket, B. (2001). Re-examining the Rorschach test in school psychology practice.
School Psychologist, 55, 97110.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits