. RURSGHACH INTEmEIAnuN As A runcnnu' f ,
fur/INTERPREIER, DEGREE 0F Momma
m swm’s msnmm

 

THESIS FflH'THE DEG-BEE of PH; 9.
' mamm STATE UNIVERSITY

WEN EMENEWMLNER  
1956

This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled

Interpretation of the Rorschach test as a
function of interpreter, degree of informa-

tion and the subjefitg' personality
presente 13

Allen Eugene Willner

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

£14.23— degree in W

mfiiafiw

Major flofessor

Date M—

0-169

 

 

jHEbX‘J’

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RORSCHACH TEST AS A FUNCTION
OF INTERPRETER, DEGREE OF INFORMATION, AND THE

SUBJECT'S PERSONALITY

By

Allen Eugene Willner

AN ABSTRAOP
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Paychology

Year 1956

Approved

 

funC'
terp.
of w]

info:

clini

the f

Five c

remaix

PSychi

1
Allen Eugene Willner

The experiment is concerned with Rorschach interpretation as a
function of interpreter, degree of information and subject. The in-
terpreters were 5 staff psychologists at 2 V. A. installations, each
of whom had at least 5 years of Rorschach experience. Five degrees of
information were employed in the study:

I. Psychogram. A Beck type scoring summary was used. In
cases where the Rorschachs were scored according to an—
other system, the experimenter rescored them according
to Beck's system.

II. Protocol, minus the inquiry.

III. Core-Concepts. These consisted of the major noun from
each response in the protocol.

IV. Psychogram plus core Concepts.

V. The whole record, minus the inquiry.

The stimuli were the Rorschachs of 15 subjects selected from the
clinic files. The records were pulled at random from the files and
the first 20 which met the following criteria were used:

(a) Between 20 and 30 responses per record.

(b) An average of at least six words per response.

(c) The Rorschach was neither administered nor supervised

by any of the interpreters in the experiment.
Five of these twenty Borschachs were used in a pilot study, and the
remaining fifteen were used in the experiment.

The measuring instrument was the Multi-dimensional Scale for Rating

Psychiatric Patients (MSRPP), out patient form. The MSRPP has been

 

 

 

 

 

 

(-11 a .

factor analyzed into 10 personality factors. The items in eight of ‘
these personality-factors were used in the experiment. '

Every interpreter received each of the 15 Rorschachs. He was
given the Rorschach of any single subject under only one of the five
degrees of information. Every interpreter saw a total of three
Rorschachs under each of the five degrees of information, and the
order in which they saw them was systematically randomized. All in-
terpreters were asked to fill out the MSRPP for each Rorschach they
were given. The MSRPP was used as a quantifiable substitute for the ‘
usual Rorschach interpretation. The data were analyzed as follows:

(a) A separate Latin-Square analysis of variance was employed ‘

for each of the eight personality-factors of the MSRPP.

(b) Another Latin-Square analysis of variance was conducted

for the scale as a whole. Thus a total of nine analyses
were carried out.

A study of the results indicates that

(a) There are differences in Rorschach interpretation which

are attributable to the interpreter rather than to the
records presented to him. The data also suggest that per-
sonality differences among the interpreters may well ac-
count for this effect.

(b) Changing the amount of information did not seem to affect

 

the Rorschach interpretation. Apparently even the minimal

information conditions contained enough information for an

 

interpretation—-at least for the MSRPP equivalent of an

interpretation.

 

(c) The Rorschachs of different subjects were interpreted
differently. However, the discrimination involved was

coarse rather than fine.

._. fl. -_x‘__A.‘ - “ g" ‘ “gun‘s. .h... ._._._A " ”A—I

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RORSCHACH TEST AS A FUNCTION
OF INTERPRETER, DEGREE OF INFORMATION, AND THE

SUBJECT'S PERSONALITY

By

Allen Eugene Willner

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State University of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPtH

Department of Psychology

1956

ACKNW

The writer wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. H. Rey
Dem, his couittee chairmen, end to the psychologists of the
Detroit Veterans Adelinistretim Mental Hygiene Clinic and the Deer-
born Veterens Administration Hospital whose suggestions, «coinage-
mt uni cooperation contributed so greatly to the ompletion of
this dissertetien.

He is also costly indebted to Dr. Donald M. Johnson, Dr.
Alfred Dietzo, and Dr. A. I. Robin for their invelusble assistance.

 

1115-" ' '7 i :Di'iibi‘.

viii .t-i .T'i o-.-t swim-vii sunsets atn' conga-o 03 sorted; satin: sd'i‘
on." '30 ':;ts.’:.go.[odo\;aq ed: a: has ,nnmtss'o oatd’i-moo aid pgmofi
mail edd- hm: ataxia sworn}! Israeli mtdndstsmm enstoi'o'v’ stands .
-33:’.'w:>ons , mo 1:139;ng saoiiw Lsfiqeoli schism-pinkish“. rinse-339': mod
30 trotdeiqmo etid' o."r mixes-13 oa betmii'rd'aw atoltstecgooo It?!” Mom
.mtisnotai'é 33.11"?

.m “Insight. .24 bLsnod .‘z'.’ o: bordemt diner; cab: 231': 31-1

.eansd'ataen ".[U'IJULEWII than” 10‘). {Lids}: .I .1: .‘IG Ems .eci'sh'.‘ be-an.

WW..
LISTOFTABIBS . .
IMRODUCTIOH . . .
MODOLOGI. . . .

Interpreters.

0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Rorschachs.....

Objective Measuring Instrument for

Interpretation

Procedure

Statistical Treatment
I . Personality Factors

0

Rorschach ‘

O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O C O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O

O O C O O O I 0

II. Analysis of the mole Interpretation

WSeoooooeeeeeeeee

Interpreters . . . . .

Degree of Informetion

Subjects.......

Othorl'indings....

O

0

Results of the Applicability to Rorschach Inter-

pretation Rating

DISCUSSION........

Interpreters.....

Degree of Information

Rorscheche......

O O O O O O O O O O

O

Page
”ii

0‘ 0‘ O‘ H 4

\2

10

10
10

15
16
17

18
31
31
32
34

2‘ 1 V . ". ‘ I ' ’1
.3 - . \). .0 ‘.L« ' .I‘\
.' ."I
L) Jul.) J.
g I .- .. v
‘.‘ i" n“ , 4 _,.")1‘ I 11'. ‘r/ ,“
’--~~ . 0 v . o 0 o v o . .. . . s o e s e e e . -Li- ..‘; '.7 waxy. -.; "‘3’;
‘1 "a 11': ' 4' 'I , ‘ , T
e e . s e e e s . s e o e e e e e e 9 Q 3 a" is ‘x 4.. e u’ .J .
'7 :(":i"“"”" :' ‘
-,- a e e e - e e e e e s e e e o e e o e e a q i...‘ .. UU‘- “.~ ‘. ' s. “L
,3 ‘-""‘1'[O-1 w ~'*
- 0 v 0 0 o e e e o e e s g e g g 9 g o g g g Q .-../~ I .M. s..', .'.
\
"‘ ‘ ‘I {s I '0 I
, ,, . .. . . ,. - ,.
‘/ 0 e e e o o o e e , g c Q . e o p Q o g a}: )u’ " .\4 ~. ’ 2.3'.
. u'. '1‘ I .H\ .-
‘J c e o ~ 0 e e e e e u e e e s e e e e e e u: ' 'v “3.”
-:" " "'I""'\'") w-x"" ’- ~.-.\ ‘.v-r.“".“ ‘- , ~33” -. rr ' .f. ,m .50; g .\ .v 2.1, .. '» ,.-’.' ‘f
“u. .H . x M- ' :-’ «'5» -‘-“ ”3"” JLJ: " ’ “'3‘.” ' . V "d ) ”MI.
3‘ ""f'" *4 1‘ 4. .1. 60"". (-32.7.
3 e a . 7 e e e s e e e e e e e o .. I..~-.» '. ; . .. ’ 2.2.
‘5‘ . ‘ I
‘ ur ’ .u‘ #-
u v e o e .. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 9 Club}! H ¢ . l
K O
i r c ’ —-~ ‘T f '95- ' 3 U) . ' ‘ :. tut, -'y'?
0 0 e e s e a e e e C e e e o I . . s -- ' \ -. .4 x. «\a‘! ‘_
r. a , J. . f. ~ -.~
. ‘ u-‘.... .I.""‘ - a. ..0 ,-i .' 1‘. x x.
“-1- e e e s e . o e e e e s ~ .. J” x. a: . {‘U .l... ...‘.-I‘.0 n JJ .i o i.
. f. . . ' -... v .- . . J, . . .. r. .‘. .
' -, . y 0‘ .'t’ 1’ « ‘ - f‘ I .‘ .. '
7 , e o e 9 MC... u r.“ ' .13 hi. Kl)... ~ ‘ -' .w) d. 0 ',~ ' . ' e u .
A r' v '. . J _ r
"-4.. o s o o e e e e e a . e e e e o e e e e I e t e o ' ~ Run»
‘1' r ”0' ."‘;\‘f at ' "i .‘ {
' . e e e o e e 0 e e 0 e o e e e e e e 0 0 V. . I. ‘1 "(.- . "- 1-“.
VI - . ' vv .' 9f If r\/\ .
,a c '9 ‘ o ‘ . \ ‘ I. ‘ I“ ~ ‘
,1- . v e e e s I e o e e I s 9 o ”()J. ' .‘llfl. .mk’ 3-13”; ..(‘ } '..‘ ‘v ‘-~~
\ “ O. ‘o l' '1‘.
JJ. s e e o e e e ~ 0 e e e e e e s e e e D e e 09 r) ’ «J '
H‘ I” en .'.‘ ‘v ' . " ‘
-. ‘.(. e . u ; n . {'1
'o . . e o a e e e c a e e e e e o e s e e e 4 p11. 311.1. -~ 5. "x J
'. » v r . u 3 . -- a o m ‘ - I . v - ~ ‘
.. ‘. . . , '. . ‘ ,. ‘. ‘- . _‘ . . . A ...’ _. ‘ ,_. . u u'. -‘ .vi '.' .’ {
“’- “ f , 9 2 ‘)' 'Jf’w. I“; f j)“: ”$.53” '. bind." 31'.» VJ A" “2.; 7‘4.
:\ r q 0 'v s
\ v.» e... ‘ .rO I. h.’ ‘n I:
“-1, O O Q 0 O o 0 e O O O 0 O O O ‘... 0].”. 1.. w .r
{-9 I'.’ ".‘ "'}'3'..>
" ")1.; \.'J\." ‘
e e e e e a e e e e e e e e e e e s e e o e a ~ ~ ’- - - .4. ,
59“ I ~ .'
' - .o 1‘ a ‘ ' e " \‘rf ‘, '
Jl.{. . e e e o a v e s s e e e e e s e e o 0 ‘1"1)1CL"" .fo.
.‘O'Q " . ' t I”
. .',“~‘ “‘ "- :' :-.‘ '
"-. e e u s n e e e e o o o e e e .(.‘.nv .- -. .J ..I.‘. ..\.J -’. .. wak‘
‘ x ‘ a.
A.' "Oliq. 01“!"
. O 0 0 e v e a o e e e e I I e n o g a o 0 s4 .. .-,:. \ . - ~

Implications.......

Validity of the Rorschach

WARD CONCLUSIONS . . . .

BIBLIOGRIHI

O 0 . O O O O O 0

iv

Page
35

37
38

{.7
r}

J_
(—3

r A

c .‘ Q ’. -

._; a I. .u‘ .. ' ‘\‘\»“» g

e e e o e e - ‘JJ .4 n“ JW. «1 . '.

r v - ’ I f e v e 5- -.
r' 3 '.!'-.’.‘u"' s r.” -. - 4“" I)"
n.'~)J .- .' I x -‘ .4‘x.‘v . ' ‘. 'n-k’ .r (J .l‘.e| -)~--‘¢ “4 ~’ v

 

"1“" U-.h""‘-" (”'7‘ ‘/""ln'.'!I'
e e e «AHA-a». t-LV‘IJ ‘I ~..t~;.‘L “out; u'Lk w

’1‘- 1921'

I
can 4. .'\o e-‘ -.

Table

2a
2b

2c

2e

21’

21

3a

3‘!)

LIST OF TABIBS

Wt‘lneaiyleeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Analysis of Variance for Personality Factor A . .

Analysis of Variance for Personality Factor B . .
Analysis of Variance for Personality Factor 0 . .

. Analysis of Variance for Personality Factor B . .

Analysis of Variance for Personality Factor E . .
Analysis of Variance for Personality Factor F . .
Analysis of Variance for Personality Factor G . .
Analysis of Variance for Personality Factor J . .
A Cannery for all Personality Factors of
Significance Values of the Analyses of

Variance....................

Ratings by Five Interpreters or the Average
Clinic P‘tim 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Analysis of Variance for the Whole Inter-
Pr.t‘t1°n»0000eeeeeeeee‘eeooeee

Ratings by Five Interpreters of the Applicability
to Rorschach Interpretation of It‘s in the
Eight Personality-Factors of the MSRPP . . . . .

Page
19

20

21

23

25
26

27
28

29

3O

'.
J;
I
a‘ ~
-a
V. .a
\ a

I» '~
Q} 7‘

1-. ' ‘ ."".<
will .1". i. l...‘ .LKL

'3: 1505“" ‘.";;'i.f_.:rroa '5)"; 'IO'J:

'1c;‘.'f).c'-;.. ‘(J‘ian‘iozms ‘7. ’C

mmnmgfifhmmme:wfi

'. " n-Jo..'., .. l (; “A
erosai go'iaunaarl sol

uh“. -

" I

T3$931 Efiii’;oatoi 1&1

. , .l. “ Iv ‘I- .g ‘ 4 "f ‘. , .
TVJOnu fidllshoaus; .Hi

.‘I .3 3.1 ‘4' ‘.' .l A 3-. T y - ~ I"
KOu.J33 udlifinxpume~ 3.;

ex . .4. *5 .....’. -"., . . t“ -, . l.“
lo :.;'I'.)u0.€.‘~ \,.;_;__.,J-,;,z)m;., 1.1.3 ”in- ".t-..f;:3.sl=d

A

. e"

., .o ‘ ‘ ,' ..
”o‘maamm.em.,“

I. .e

, ,, . . .: . . ..,. ,. .3,“ . - . . ,3» ..,,.
ndsusvn on. to cm» ~1dao¢nl e,u1 ‘t

3‘ LE are: 31-3 '1' 10’:

. I
‘
q.-

. - '. ,, ‘ f1.
.:).;I-).I.'.:.L .’ .'-u

. , t .. . . .,.‘e ..
figsjifi . ~‘)~';‘fJ3:)-:. 41".“th

J
". I l. .
U
c e a" 1 ‘33 Lu I.)

r,5 ' v“ a a ,\ .". "i“ g _ a .,. ”N, 1‘s" ,“ ,. .'.- '
h!) :‘J‘Q‘i‘l‘ :14 :1 -(J L. - 23 1 3.2; .L“. -.... .‘3'1’4. “(i
. ; °. ‘ I. “ t) ‘ . '. .' ,_ j. . ,' - I
rm.) 11:. 81.5., . J. J!) .101 .f 2‘.» .“I- “m it . = (1.25:.

('5’ ~ r. v. . . ,. .v... .- . x. 3 r‘ . .
C . Ii. .L. .35.,1 L Igri‘k if) 'JU‘..." ..3 fl ") ---v- SAO‘ ‘ ‘»

'3 ."1 Y . . ' ‘
u.I.k'0\nj.-'J&L(
I

(a ,- \r£o~_o ..
-.4.‘. 3 u.) \

ztaxlsnfi

.
-' v r 1
.--JL«
~ d 0". ad.
0
5' ~ ‘ce.r-‘ v
‘4 e." I.

a O

. .
()1) (fl 5 1,.) 41.! L

0" . I‘o .3
K~O_.:v: £' ‘Je:

e. ‘-'

r .
O I
.L San: 1.4.x:

a . ‘A - "

11:210..
I t O

J; ,1.“

{a
J77

WWI“

host of the Rorschach literature seems to be primarily concerned
with the Rorschach as a m. Ii" one focuses his attention upon this
point of view, he may ask questions such as these:

mat are the reliability and validity of this instrument? What
do the various Rorschach determinants measure? How are people. who
see “14" different from those who do not? I I

However, there are many other ways in which one may conceptualise
the Rorschach situation. For instance, he might regard it like an
other projective test, as essentially W, and focus
upon the process of interpretation. From such a point or view the
Rorschach is regarded primarily as a source of information with which
the examiner constructs (and cross-validates) his hypotheses.

The questions which such an orientation suggests are of quite a
different order. (he would wish to know, “How does an interpreter
nake an interpretation?“ One important variable in this connection
would be the personality of the interpreter, and how it affected the
interpretations he made. Filer (9) has investigated this problem,
using clinical reports, 3.1.!» reports based on a battery of projective
tests, rather than on the Rorschach alone. His subjects were 13 male
graduate students working toward the Ph D, in Clinical Peycholog.
Twalve reports were selected from those written by each of the sub-
Jects. Specifically, Filer's hypothesis night he paraphrased. The
frequencies with which certain interpretations occur in clinical

. « ’ s f
'I P . , ‘ V _ .. d. . . .r r :- - - .. I .Qta ~.-' - . . 4.x : '- ’ 7:: 'e t r,‘\ . .Ol‘fi‘... a ’5 '.* ‘ I, ' "'e .
if.) “I..." J’)“‘ .‘z‘ I 4 )IYL l“ ‘\“ I ,‘ ~' he ll; ‘ 3 ~“ ..‘ . . hi .L.,!4_; “.1. J..'§s .1.)- it.) .1 .h‘Js .L -. Lu'.‘ 1.x] .- ‘J\). -
L . .— s . , -- . . . .

’ - '- a > - '- f . Lt . F - ' - '-. 7. j .. N 1 " f "‘1‘ o‘i ' - f, ." f4: ;-‘
“3;, (fin-g j 31!} p . .,;‘ :3 n.3, 9"; 3:10 ”4‘ .J ”‘3 u c ‘, 31.33:} ruin"). - .3..-. u. .~..-7
' ' ' ' .. -- t e . ‘.. b J ’. .
.. x ', ‘ . ‘V . 9 \~ -. . f: {_ V -~_ _ s ‘ . r , _
z?! s4 5£|Jj~ 5:. : .'-9)rc,l I: f. :.\ .lxy till." __,..';3 «I, ' .. ,fl ‘ ~f'n-I. 9.0 Jfl~(>.i
- - 4a 0' a g 'I.‘
.3. .' .L . .. ,. ... '-- .‘e . t -- .~ :7 V as are. _A.-.‘- -'._L’e ’sr :, r ‘_ev fi‘: __J‘“" ‘31"‘1.
.. .' 3"“ . a. ti 3" Y. 3 5:1“ “a .. ..’ I .3 . f 5....‘LJ..."J “ -;' 1:} ",V J. g...t.‘- o-é.-..‘-[..‘ ‘. .-. - ~-’ ' vu' ' \' '- A"

I I ' ‘ (' . . ‘ . . "J. , ‘
. . s- - -'. a ' -- - , II -- s' - f9.) - a - s ... '~ .\g r -‘IUO'.' ~ 0 t - - r ..‘ e . V
091'." diQG *‘(l '5.- ~ uC ; t, . 1‘ 17., luff .1. .3 ~ .~...«;..-..Lr.'1,:..: 9). an}. or , «(1.3. up ‘19- J ‘31“! 3!:

- . ,. .- , . .' '. . v 1 '.. - . ”3“» ’.'. I! f" . 5,

e 301; U.” '1 ’ I .331)‘ '-' LL; 1.}. 55‘1“}.33 . .'.-. . ’ ..'. ' 3130
- . .‘. .. ._ , . . . 4. V . . .J’ .. t- a , .. .5 - -p“ .' u t . u- e , er. I ~9’.. ‘ w ‘ .‘
‘13‘5-3‘! ...'*-~*.2:10:... “as... :ux.) .: $3.113“ Ls. . 38?" '.:.° :0 fiat . t" :3 .--'2.'-.!.J (id's-2 :0.-

r~-- 'e =. t

. O I L ' r . .’
..~v . . a . . . - - ~n_, r], n. _-_ -' '1‘. \Av- _> > -..‘ fo-r _) F .";s _'~. . y '1. -.v .7 . '
12‘ .s' 3 a}, '...'...i. ’ . .7. . J4: ,. 3 \ .3: .. .‘ 1.“ ' .‘ 3t ‘32.: Q .3 'JJ‘TUS. a ‘.' ‘- 'TQ) ». g 5.! at. . AJ'Q .~~-a a. 3;): 1-) '4 I. J ' .1: ‘

. . . .
.- h . . ,__ I“ . t_ ,., p A '.. J . la a. 2. u, ' _ K ..h _ r .s. u.“ p‘ J: '3. j v. '.' . _ ‘ _ ' " ,w '- (_ n‘ ‘- .“ -‘
‘4: vi“ “ ' All.) ‘ " " ‘-‘ .,$ - u. .. «Jar-[U u 3 .3-9 ”Jr . » . ..I ~'. ‘ ., '.. .3 Q J ~-- 3 3 e -w 3-)) w .2: .--l~ \-

L ’ o.
.--hn."“ “0.. 1-5“ .. as

 

. .:_;, -. -. o'. ‘ . ,. _ I! . .i. g... . .M,‘ f. .' c" - \ .5 y. .- H. , x h... ‘. .

T’filt-J . "‘1 .‘ ." ,‘.' ‘ J ft 2:: - :5 .. Ln}. '9 1:73.)..1- J. .303“: A "j Y ..'.’-.' (is: J \’ non-'5‘.) 3 I“ nae-5 1 H‘s)(.~- .

-' ‘. 2 h" L . . . t. ,‘. ‘ ’ ~-. ‘ ‘ o~ ‘. , I. r- , ‘- ~ I‘ "6‘ . .- r“. 1". ;.e . ' ’\ 0; '7‘ :- ‘l‘e‘ "xx -t z ‘1‘,
[any . a- ' t .s.’ .133 HI 1. 5 ~.‘ :vf'f) .1 w: .' ‘3 '..3'.:J4‘Ot'3 m" we}; 3.5.0. 3 3S ‘ t. .53: .34).." w.) .:: } .‘x. JJ. ‘;\).81‘. ’ AOT'Q-r t
'3‘.-.-..’-~ ~-- ’ ‘."' --. “2‘ AL... . ‘t’t’ e :--rf"2 H 3-,) ‘e‘ ."<..’"‘ 0‘ '1‘": ' ~°'. M4“?

. 1.1:”.-017, J'; ;- '. .‘. 1. x . cu site-3 .. . “t. Z“) .7) «(2.5; -.‘o~.| ~. K it. mid); umJ. ...- t . h n

I I" 1, ° J . . ‘.. .. . t._ .,
‘,I _ ._ K , . “ . ‘ ‘. > 2"“ 'r" _ - .‘I aha.“ -.‘I a. I" . .,§ 7 e ‘. '4 . Q I“ . ‘..II 2‘ . . ’
5 (55151.14 ,. r’. -' a I» .w .- s ...I-\J.;.~ .~ 31.. :4. .s. new. .- . .'. .- 1.9.0.3..» .71: s.

. .’. .L‘. P' - , . - I. - p :— . ,. 7». . 7P .Iz‘. ‘ .V‘ ‘—f .e. Is r:--. .4 O ', "r. .. .‘ - 3”“) J|~g\ I ~_.~- . 3"- [-9 .T“’r'c‘p 1 t. \
1:)" 3 ,1 Li .1.“"‘) '.‘. . A: a ,2 '1 .Rg’.) ‘ ' (v-1 .. 's I .' .i a .1 x. t: v.'.‘,;’ . 353'». Q J,‘ . e. ..~' .5: I a. s .. ii. -
' ’ . . .' ' , I" - ‘ . J - -’ e .e- ' “I g; I- as o : I. s. . -. e’a . .e -. ' s .

4- .‘\a 9...... .. . e .vo - \. ‘t, 9' . . ,p M p ,. \ (- ,fl V a. 4" l . 1' H I!“
{3.0th {4' ,EL... If.) §l.:.)£_: \IQ:,’ :_).4.LJ.A'1'...-.(.“f J‘b'7'.; 4'.‘-)'\"‘-.hi. -'!‘5 v .J‘. ge'z“ "3 II. :10. 9‘ ’{m‘ ‘l - 'sit‘a ".

o
\

._ .;. , . .. ., .1 ’ . . 1........,. 3., y. .4... “1 ,...'.3‘, W, .. _ :J. _ I ~* In.
“5 1 UAW" l .... .r .. 5’31). 14'3" ‘53:}. 1.) l..:'_.t~.,"v;l.--. '3;.: a0 33.1.4.3“0 ..;‘(f “... 33-4 4'.)...~,UU

I \
' . ‘5 9’ V 4’. ‘J. a- . " ‘ (Pt ’ Yt'" . . ' . ‘... L .. -. .. .9.
. , a -'.. ». - r. ~ ~ - “.1 .. . . a .- . ‘ M "‘7 ' ‘ .' J M r. f
‘3” “ ’.1 J. t f |-'---: yf-J ‘;:;A‘f’.;'-T3 13“.]. “In: \\ J) '[J - o . 09;) It "‘1 it ,0. ~..‘.b\ .' _ .--’.Y.3..+- LL
‘ t
' I I 'A u' . . r I ‘ .- . . d. ‘ ‘ " '. . 5. ’A . E b e . .0 ~. '
.' 1. .‘ ‘ . ,. ‘ s . _- e .. . r. . t, _ . p. Q . a W t” 9") . . l .e _ I" _ I a "
3‘7 . ' :A- 7'1. . . _'"£‘).. 35“. L .' .3 m? g...)(' Q1 I? .1 ’J» 9 a 3 .1: (<4 '10 3’) 5 .‘t. .3 “if”. -. rs: ii..- .
' a. I. -v‘. ‘fii‘ ’
. ‘ .-. H " . ..‘- .~ ‘ f w ~-. ' | ' 0- 3“ ,f \r' r r‘r ’. I'- r" 5'06 3 it *‘. l“ I~er "3"".93 -‘
‘3 F45 1'. '1 .1. ’. v ': ff? ‘._‘.fi.f,' ‘ ‘3 0 91¢) LI‘ ~..-.9.‘.,..:D.>. m). . v. . 4' .-..I ~.‘. . ‘ sh“. s. Q C...‘ n: .

A . O". .f «- ‘.- ' r’ a It '(i 1‘. r _‘ t‘v-u "5 ' yaer. 4 .e t‘ .3 ‘4 1; } (0-1.. .- I- ‘e-‘-\ '..».
a 530.4 1.1323 . . .“33..-.!..'.4.~. Ni (V :3 a L)! . . i Minn} .aII'W‘ .A’Je“ ‘len . J :- .-J tun-5.)»..- ?

f " ' ' I‘ ‘ ’ . . ".' - ". '- r a . . . ‘O . - . . T" .. ‘c
, ,, , , .. .f 5; ,. ‘ . . ' e g. . ."‘ . a .. "T ' .’ 2‘ ‘ ... | ‘9“, . 6‘." . . l , .' r ‘3' ‘ .1 ._ . r f; y ‘ an ‘1 g . e a .
“H... the f “1-3 .. ) ”y. ,3") ”I! '.".~|.|'fl .L ‘a (’4' 3. 'II -9!) l . .' ,-U .3.' 3-.-"4 1) 1”“! m I .x'..' 5‘ .. 3V.L-.. J.
c e.
H“ ' ' D ’ ’ e- 7- . I ‘ . . r . { H '-.' t ~ - 3. ' ‘. " 'e. s '
r1 ‘ V' "r -e| " -~-u~- ~v .: 0.1~~, "“ “.1; '1 - w .‘ . ‘t I ." ° V I \. r f_ '~- :' a (1‘ "K ~ ‘1 .
“‘1. ‘l' O ‘1) .s- . I*1 .- ,. 2:. I L ,“J _ . I_ I ”111 5, _. .1. 1 . .. j .. I"; 3. .9 l Q...J. .1. Q {..,,_L.- . ,- ._. u.‘ J‘t."..~ . .4 ,1 \_) 9 .1
w 3 a p a .e r- a, ' a v , 1' I f‘ k t — ‘ ° I I ‘(i L. ‘ ~ I‘ 'v' . ' ' ';' .‘ “ 1 ‘ 3 a Weir's , .‘r.
-in' "’ hr?! .9 'o ‘5 'l ' '--'3&O—le . ‘ -' - i as 5. {H ‘. .‘ awe.- ’ ‘ I 'l‘e'A i " : l .l '.' ; .1 1 -; - .a

reports are related to independent measures of the interpersonal he-
hlvior of the people who wrote the reports. Filer counted the number
of times the report-writers used words describing hostility, passive
dependency, etc., in the patient. He also had judges who knew the
report-writers rate then on the same veriebles using severel person-
ality inventories, such es the Guilford-Mnrtin om. The findings
were thst the dinensions aphesised in the reports of the «rim ex-
sniners were related to ratings of their own personality cherecteristies.

In order to enswer the question: ”How doesisn interpreter neke en
inter-pretax:on‘2'I , one must investigate still another prelininery ques-
tion: 'Hhet ere the sources of intonation which the interpreter uses
in making his hypotheses?" Do all of the presued sources provide
different kinds of infornatim, or might one dispense with certein
som‘ces without the interpretntion being affected? In other words,
does the uncut of intonation, beyond an certsin minim make any di£~
ference st e11? One might ask whether interpretations of Rorscheoh
records which consisted only of the psychogrsm would be on different
than interpretations of the whole record. Granted that when one has n
wholerecordhehssnore informstionthsnwhenhehesonlyepsycho-
gran, the question would be, ”Is this sdditionel interaction (clinically)
useful?"

In ell the voluminous Rorschach literature there seal to be only
“Into uperiunts which are eddressed to this problem, is...” whet are
the sources of information on the Rorschach. Grant, Ives, end
Bensoni (ll) , in the course of s mug-faceted inquiry into the reli-
sbility end validity of the Rorschach, devoted sue time to the

 

e
\ O f - ’ . ‘ I 1 ‘1' ‘I "A
, _, . . . . . , ‘,. e _ - / ~ ‘ ' )If A | I
« \.’ f. .1" ie ’ -:3,=. ‘ ‘ r. . ’ . '. h». .:“ v.3. ' a eds, .rc :u A
..
. e . . '
' ‘ ‘ . I ' '1 ' . - f. . k -p y In- A 5 r .4 ‘ - I! ~. 0 w” f~
,. . ,nv. , . e uh.'._...r., .f; . . mew”... o_ 'f" ‘ ‘i' .__ 4' _‘ '4‘ ' . . .- I
,g'm'gnu.‘ ‘:.:. ',fl.,i,_',‘.(J-_) “3““. ..,,._; .....‘1_ ' 3.5. ..‘\. n. (.‘- I“ .. e t "
- 0 '° I - f e- . 0 ~ -’ .. I. " y . , . 7 ' .. ' ‘ . t w ‘e- e"
‘t~ "e.a ‘ 'D‘t . e . --'. -. -; 3r- '.' -1, \ '. e \ {i an n‘ ' ‘~."" veg" . v . 5‘. 'l -‘ _ .‘r ‘1 ‘ , . _ . ‘ ‘0
‘ v H "3 I ‘J “L E J zit-Ian ~‘llue‘ la .y‘ I ' - l 0' .K. ~~ ' .4' l ‘J .‘ ‘\OI ~ 1‘ :0A . _ . ,.‘t ‘Je\!~~‘ l
' ’3. ‘ .e ' .J .
' " ' "d" ~‘-" 3 "~ ’-.. ‘ . ~ ' 1'; t ( ‘. l7.“ -s':‘\ ‘ l“)-‘.r\f‘-'{"" '51",
' e' I ~ _ . _ _ .
)e . .H’ L“. >3 ' . , ‘ :t :7'. ’d '.1\.i ’ .x'i...,- .. . at! . , ’ Q .J ' 1". ., 'l
‘ x .

 

 

 

 

o ‘ ’ ' '4‘
. 4 a . . I\ r g- u 7 5 9.‘ 5*, __ r ‘. ,1 \ ‘ 1:5,.» _.. ‘ “t ‘ 3* (‘3'?
.9. ,,\J'..“..~:‘.: LI"; 3'"; -. ..)..eJ. 1U . .r‘). 5.53.: ,. ,. , ....: ,. 3... {ti} - 1‘ 3+ . .»., 6‘"! 3.0.1 I ..
. - . .. .. ' Q I ‘
" .'- :‘rl' "' 17 ‘W .‘ "c c ’ ‘ ‘1 { ‘-.r‘- _r ‘ \n -r.‘\c-'-. .' -\ eé’.‘. - ~ ~.‘r - 37"".{1'
.13’5‘“ .' . l..- 4|. . ‘1. . " -:¢.. .v .? 1, :1...’ ' “(.3 .' an“; at) .' -,.\ 'at- 3“. .-I 3.033 a- ;s-‘.' ' ~-' 4. - o .. e ;‘ » e '. Ll, ‘(gl‘ ., b
.2
‘ n ' - -. ° ._ . r; .. .- e.
.-.. ‘. e - ‘n..a. .. '_-"' '1 ., IL. we! :‘f" e v ' ‘ . ' . _.1 .-'~. ,'
“'5 as"; ‘r ' «.13: ‘5’ f. .r): ‘.L_) 3'“) "6" 4. *A‘Jj n3. '.1' . ,-.;- :I. to.) 0 -e .. «if. e k. ~‘.-. - .J ..J . 1 5‘.) 4s
'3 - ’ n 3. . '-' '. '. . . .. . e.‘ J" "A .,e. .; ‘..LJ.‘.’. . .'. K 4.... ' . ..,:, .’ ..“,.(., f.' ‘
1.333;; '3 333'3 1-;3 53 LE ‘30 Tn». .030 'lfOJ 1-5 .1!) . ...".J v» .3. 1).. .g-m. n.2,; 4 5 .m. .. a. .z. 7.1.4.1.;
' .. .-~.~L v- r .'. ' h ' r. _\ u .-.”'.i . "' ~ ;_r“ ""v 4-\+ V'. If I.
3: 3' .‘lui '15" 1 ‘ . .fK 19.511: 115.: ~e ' ' n n n: “'3 ~.".1. «Cw Uh} i‘.).‘-" -0 ff 3.
. Q ~ ~ .. .e . e . O ‘ ‘ ‘ t+ ’. .- ’ ‘j
. - - , . I § ~.s« f". . . '. _.n, - .. . ‘r .. .lfie e 7-",- . f _ M “1.. 0‘ . 1 .
“a; 1 T ”J 72.3.... ‘13.. ‘1".2. qw frx)£) I -.'- -lv 4: 79".. 4;. ." . 2's ‘ ‘.' J '_,. , cel,l...1 A 1‘) ‘. .tU J... .l ’? l.'~~1'IaU “I
e do - . . .'\‘ . - n —- ‘e p' .‘w?’\ ~ .- ' ’Qfi‘ ‘ "s ’ -) . ‘ "I'IQI 1" g .0 3"“
3 V." )3 ”7")” ”m1; “:1." h' Busu DJ. . . «eh .» J 1.»! ‘J ' .J. ...~)
‘ ‘ ' - . . 's ‘t ‘ f' I n '1 3 ' '9‘ I. . s -e- s ‘ W ' . . . b d . — ' ~ .' .e .0
‘ ‘- -* "a ~‘ W”. * e" '3: d . -..' ; ‘ ‘s ‘ -‘~._.\ -~ “may; \ . . , | _
‘3)1. U".".i' . " 4's" .‘ (7-4 .09: flf'n r.‘ .-.. 1 2.1.4.: 0 .x...?. ’2; u’ .. z .. U3.“ . “In! “a ‘ f‘v.L.l. ‘ CA -1. i.:.-
e I r I I 0 v0 I V O. ‘_ ' . I. _L' _ a" . " '\.". . .- _ 0 ‘0' 3'". .-1- .‘ .. o I
‘~ -. , an -. p‘ —' .~’ e as e f_,__ \C .1 ‘ ' I p I I I , .‘ . ' f . ‘3
{‘3 Leta '.L‘.,'- L! d i. 3' .u --1.. n ».,. :J ’cT-I.‘ -.) {1‘1 it’ ¢i - .~. J . .- .' f1" .9.) 0113.... e z : .-. a ., “VE'
"' A r P "J‘ ’ ’. ' .' . .. .'. “.3. J. . It. ' .. ‘ ‘vrb. A
A¢.-~ '~ - . I F \‘ ls ~ -’\ f - r. ‘ , .- v‘.» P- ‘ ,1 L l" . e» . ’~ . f v .I .I .(l ,
e ;),_,,.-_. .‘ 4.3: 1., L) LL 3 «In. .23 .. 4.4. .112 Jr. ' '.~.1 a v-,'. '- “4 “ ' -' 5" 'H'W'“ ' ‘ “J " 3 ’
\ ,
. " ' ‘ " v ‘ ~' 4". l'
‘.' '. a. , ., - .': ,3; . 1! .‘e .. .. .4 , v . .a f. ,- ’le . '. ., ..\ ft 't . -,. -. _-....:n- '~. g : ‘ j. . \ e e-m .. 4 . :v‘ ,. x \
"" .k ft» ”13,311. . 23.5511; , .. .14». .1 1.3.9} ’1‘.) u,’ s5 A...“ ~ ;."-~' ‘1'“... ' .r . ‘3. i‘.- l.‘. . ‘ «bug 3A. 33 t e .1 " ~ iv
. .. . . " '” .. ‘0 .. 5,. a I ., .'.. . ' C, ." ‘ p ' .' ,.. ~' J.,:.. ' ,‘T ‘ , ‘ .' R" l .. : f‘ .p. f ._ . ' .u'}
..:'-:L§‘.s'::'_'z_) 1: 31’1“: '.. . .223’2'51.’ 7 .1 J . '1 y 3&2". Au... u ...;‘%..‘I..+- ..sm. . .(v . . ~... or): f. t L J _.
.. .. . --*.~ f1. .\._.-, . ..‘ "-i‘ - t . ‘..-~.,.- ,..-,,, . 4, o‘. N ._r.__ ”,4.” 1”,, ,.- 37‘ - «3,. ”'5, ‘ .v'
. M. ‘5. .(t: .C- ‘.,« _5‘ ‘1 .{Leo .9 Le: ‘.‘.'e._' t'-’ .1. .. ’s' ' .L N. ".. ' 1‘ . .. --‘ a, ‘-'I - - -'f’\‘ .‘ - g ._ . . - - I.” ' ‘l I ‘I'
- I. ' . < ‘ "" e ’ .' 3, . 3' ”In: ‘ ’ ‘ "Y“ " -" s MC. 1 r :3 "3+ ‘3 1‘ '5 v'f, I " '. ”)0?! fora“? '_r v- - ‘I «‘4 .I'
7 fl. I: \- , .‘ -~."_~ Jaw,¢.i A»! . , ~23», } Hf. \ .n.‘ -.‘., al....- . he 4
. . _t a ¢ r _ "r
e , . l’ - ~e . 5.. ,' -:- - wg‘ r . .' a. 0" ‘ Y . D,— ‘ .~ gula -. , . , ,3 -‘ r‘ \‘m' . _ .2- e . .a‘ r ~. "
n W ‘ ' . ‘1 .‘1 i3 f: :‘Liir/ z";:. '. .' {i J.t'}jo s; . teat)" tn ,\ ,u‘l x" are. A}! “‘.~- .‘ .‘ . u. “-~ 'x.’. -) . 1- to - ) J -A.‘)4 \
o . ~ g .' n g. a - .‘ _ 7 3 e- e, _ n? '0 I. ‘ A. .. . n - 1“ _' . A If"?
3 y - v - -. o . , ,- . . . o g . .‘ v I , ,_ Q . . . ‘ _‘ ‘ ,
1’) 7 '-, ' i 1. ‘..' ,1, ..-..-'~aliL'.J:.0 211:)": '.-z. . ‘ a». V '3 .’. .z ()5, DO I. 3 ~ ’ .1, . L- 0‘ (J 'j
..
‘ 5-, -\ v
' H’L ',‘~'. {9
D D
. - 3 , , e o L , r ' ,u- . ' .1 .. nu" ; 11“?" .~ .. |~. \ .. ... 3., ' o. . ' {‘4. ' " n, f D
2: fi" 42/: “A ‘ 35.5, t 2'-) ..)' I, J"). I”: E- .J . .g. A. ‘ '1.’ ;' ' ' {tJJJe Int) \ '1‘ J. ‘31-: -r :' ’J V -' out-£4 1 Jo
- 1- - l . ‘ . tri . . ~'-. ‘1 x ' ‘ w «auw; iw --~ ' '3‘ "‘j"T-)"“fi.‘“ 'w‘ “cs wt» 5-
_ {2.1,} r f.) m" .i"! i .‘i” -’v, y (k ‘. .’ 1.1 g)’ . v“) A. " ‘ e“ n.’ ~93 ' .1. ¢~ 3- t ‘J- .t..~.-l. n. e k...- 5‘ -‘ ‘-I ' .41
Q ‘M'LTV
,v .- 't .3 . ’ ‘ , .l"', j‘ ‘ :l.’ ' ,\‘I‘ J. ‘ e r. ‘ '. .,I a'.‘ I, ' “ '3’}... 'v' \ ,i- O’- - (:1 --\.T'.)II.
I 4 fl o. ’ ' “ Q ‘ ~ r J. .‘ .- '6.) '- 1‘“ ‘l .‘12‘.’ LJ 1’ I. .I,. ‘1... 4 .' ,1 \ e 1 .
- ' u .‘ ~ . ‘ I . .- -‘ O , ‘
. ‘ :0 . v- 3‘. ,3. .. . ,.’~ ; . ...,. ~".. ,-..,... _ ,' . -....-‘ l .u' -. {A . .. p ' 3 "’r’r‘.‘ “A .2
‘4. ,1 t" a: p; e u" I .‘ ' L .,_ '4, , ,. I -" .. ., -. 3' .J‘.‘~.A J "‘ .. : “4; ._ -I.) ,‘J :4- U ' fl EU I 'Q. a \ . .... .s. . ‘-: . . no
' ' ' ' ‘ .3 7 '7. ' f - . t . .. -- ‘. " v.
L - . , . .. . .~,_ ‘1... , _ , ' 7 ~ 7. V ,- .7... _ I. I“. I‘ .‘ ,. n. . k, I. ~ 1 . r ) , ‘,

3
exploration of this problem. In this part of their outperinent, three
judges rated the adjustment of S's from their Rorscheohs. The
Rorschachs were presented at three different levels of information:

(a) (holy the scoring Sui-nary.

(b) Scoring emery and the Scoring Record.

(c) Entire record - incluiing the run protocol.
Each judge first rated 3 under condition A, then condition B, then 0.
One or into this intervened hetueen the rating and re-rating of the
Rorschachs. The measure employed was the percentage moment between
raters . The authors concluded, "Concerning intra-rater agreement there
was no particular dvsntage or disadvantage to using the full Rorschach
protocol over the formal aspects alone.‘ he above conclusion may be
questiaaed for several reasons. First, the procedure of having the
ease juige re-rate the same Rorschach under a different condition of
intonation after only a period of one or tuo days is very question-
able. It is entirer conceivable that after so brief a lapse of tine
the Judge night renalher his previous rating and hesitate to change
it. Secondly, it should be aphasized that the Judges were asked only
to rate the adjustment of the 8's, not to interpret their Rorschachs.
There may well be a great deal of difference between these two tasks,
and my hot necessarily be much generalisation from one to the other.

Caldwell, Ulett, limb and Grenick (3) also investigated this
problem. They used 3 levels of data:

Level I - Couples: - including content and scoring, and seeing

the S fece—to-face in the testing situation.

f \r ‘

 

 

. . ‘ :. 1 . 1‘" ’ . v v c Q ‘ -. . I u~ - '0. - 0‘ f 'r‘ ’7' u. I z- 7 .
v . »‘ ' . I ‘ ‘ ~ . . ~ ,'
. ' ._ ~ _, I.a . "3 z ' .. .. . g . ,m', s. . "1' -.., .2 .. ' "H '.-‘
~ .
)l V O I t "
o I - , . u - . ' . ‘ ’
- .9 v . '30? ’ ,. T ‘ - J ' . '~ , - ‘ . I . -
J A! . ‘ ' ’ -\ .~ ~. It .4 “f N‘ .‘. , . ,-' ,V’ 2, - ’. J ...( -. ..' ,.L at) . '.'_.u.'..«' f. . ' | ' i }_ t “ ' : .
. a . _v .-‘ ~ (w..-‘ 4 f- g - | ~ -
‘ ‘c .4 ' - '1‘ ‘ ‘5 ' '_‘~ r1 .' c." u. 'r‘ f .\ ; an t ' '~ 0 n, .‘ ) 5‘ - _'- 'u‘ ‘ - ,- 1 - . > ‘3
1 J». . ’ A ' -‘- - '3 ' ‘ " i‘ ‘p‘J- ‘~ A. ' .'- .‘-.-. .5) 3 ;V‘ '. ‘4 3.2»; . :-..‘ .‘ .t _ t: i ',' ,. .' ..'. ‘. ' A: . f ‘.
s.
_r. --f- o r _' u o _; .I .‘r ‘ , . ‘ s . .' .I c I’ "." ' ‘I - ‘
Q \ ‘ ' -' .. ,. 4 “'3 Li. a.‘ . '.- :i‘) -.J..~‘.' k”-
'v u- . n u " ‘J I $ 9 . ' ‘
v ‘ .. .‘ ‘ pa ~- ¢ 1 “h‘, . . L‘ ‘~o."'- 1’»..o . '3 ,. -l a
.JJJu‘a v {if h L' \' ‘ a, 513—! '« .'_ u 1"". !- .. J. - 3 . \ ,v
T '\ .' 0"”. 9— :- F, N ‘- _I. A 0‘ ‘ (4 . :9- - .g ' I v I ‘1. ‘ .
\ .., ‘ ‘ . . ,. " . * - . ‘. if, .“L ’ , , .- f“. ~.
I. k- u ‘9 1.8-! .:-....-‘-t J . .~ «1 1(1). La- 4‘ wads.--“ "’ "'3‘.’ j 3. A. -. .‘ ..
u' S. ._ \' ’. , 4 ..‘.\ , . I f '. I . ,. f. .n v. .,‘ol,..(. v- ? .-Pf :) .\,‘ o. 4“}, E,‘.,‘, fa} A _ ‘ f 0. J-‘ ‘
Q . . _" ‘ a .4- . $2-, ' 4. ‘L . . ,Ai! t” LJ.'-. :1 ‘ ‘1-\‘\.} 19.43, -. .u--.:h'.5_1 .L ~. " .‘J. "33 aoi. o n ‘I
‘ a" l. . v" ‘ . ' .I"' p," i... -"J‘ u\ f: :' “ I“ -l~ . !\' 1f“‘( r( J 5’ 't .‘f- I \u .‘ ‘7“ ‘ :. n. '. ._ W .‘ , . ‘
J .' ‘. ‘ I, I ' J'Q'T’ ‘5 ‘ 4 fl ' - . , .C .1" “ ,‘,. " “V‘s. akw .CJ': .' 1", J _U'.; . 4. d ' .‘ I '- ‘ "J _. {‘3
~ - ‘ " ' ' t ' ' ' p' ‘ '4 0" " r ‘ Q "- ' -~ I 'v ' - ‘rv \ r~ I"" " A ‘ - ' ‘ ' ‘5' {s \ ‘wr
.- 2r , . v . . .9 ~ . - . -'.. , , , . .. - ‘
.r J ' ' -" I . . ‘ A ~.' A n1 1 -33 .1 1‘) ~31. , —‘. '_O.'.£{at- ' J 5' run—{.1 ,. . O -. --“.‘ , A -.
. r. m
J ‘:"'.‘\ If t.‘ ‘ c \‘.‘ 3., I0, ‘ x" ' "- y u" '3’“; "‘- ! 9.x.“ .1- T'q”. II _‘C . “""'r‘t "-(.‘v t -. ‘ J DA:
" ‘ w 3’ .\ .- j R ““3; ‘31. ‘ H}. .. ‘0. M' 9 '_ ' rm: -;'.. .u'. ‘ 1"-.fl-;' 5. - c 1'; N
‘ ' v' . ' J ' r- t
,‘s' ' - 4 , .’ .. \ ‘-‘ . b a f. r’ . ‘. ‘ fr _ \'. ‘ ‘ .4 i,- If. . .' T“ _ ... _. -' —,‘_ ~‘ u, . ~
\ '.u , J '.. . ‘41.... J J a! 53... '..I.w‘«u ~,.’: - -‘,o 'r ;.--a‘£..4v kn -5..L4.~.L .s.'.‘\‘ 3‘: ’- ..
.- . ..
.fivl ""Ix .v 'H . * " .Vfironl'» .‘ ' -*,I" “f" t, ”1/" - 7 Q \ '."|.<. , ~ . Q vnyr,‘ .4»: 3' . - r ,‘ . N r..— .
. 1 , . uc - . . I v '- . - ~. ' ' A
~.I‘.' ‘u-‘JI J. v . ‘m "4 a. 1.1.x; ) "f‘ " A... Q ~ I \.(.J.5.--) ... .H.1\!U}v ‘."-l 'l '41.” m\) ‘fo . ."‘-)'. '.. '~_ J“ _
. ..'3. ”xi. 7;» ' ~av r G I ‘ '7'. '“xv .‘ ' N ' “>' "‘ ‘ - I D N H
, .- ~- - ~ - . .m ' "_ ._" - ‘ ‘a' _I ‘ > 1 .. "‘ -- ‘-~
I‘ I .'. I 3.‘ - ‘ "'0‘“ I .55‘ '5 ’h‘ ‘ ' . I V !4 ‘m- . '--n()- ) '3 >t J-JJ a. , "I :‘4 30‘ ) «L '\ 31.0 .‘3 ~c" \J
n. .F ‘ . . _h 1 ""\-‘ . V5,", 9.} , \ .‘~4-.--- . . ' r“ .~ “I" . ’3“ \.... _, .‘ fl ‘ 3,“... N _.V‘ r: .9 . m”. .1
“LI 2.: J '--..J .9 -' ’ L5 .:.~. ~.‘. ‘5 .3 - . 3 ‘ $. ~Je1~.5-2'.._‘. _LJU‘O ..... 3x7.-'.:.'."'~' " Ila-EJI. .uu.‘ 4
. . ‘ r . . f a I- _g '
' .n . - ‘5 .,-. \P' ..‘ _ -, . ‘ .N“. .,. . . -. ‘ . ‘3' .., ‘. “'.' -+._ ' . ,. . ,..
" ‘ r .'* 1- ' .I 4. ‘1‘ 1-5.4 m .'.i ‘ALU ..'.) 5:13- I. ‘ . ' ..--. :.‘- “J J L's '1’ .0. a." .. . x'.
. I 'J \3
I r ' I» ' v o _ '0 v- f ' 0 s .- 9
r Y' > ‘ , _ ,7. ~ -. ‘r- 'I .~ 4- 9 I} ., ‘ \ -. '0‘ r" - ,v _ - - .f v? ' :V‘ ‘ -t~ ~.° _-. - - I
‘ - AA. ' ~ ‘ ‘1 .1. J 95..) -. .1.{-‘ I.) ‘ I D p." 'u-' .. ‘ .‘- ""u‘.--‘\)r.0\~) $.C‘j L x 1-1‘.’ M! .. 's‘ a. .‘ :I'I!‘ ‘
. .0 (.’ i" "‘ - ‘ .3- '- 'l . ‘ 5“ .. ‘ .v. /. . I.‘ u.“ 9‘4 .'~‘: ’I."'-' u :C_:; ‘c-r . '-‘*f ,. \‘V is - .' f. . . in. ‘-. .' ‘
.’ ’l“0~-Jo -. .‘ ’ . _ a !: ~.' J l N 0‘. .- . '4’ '. .J.k' 3 J. Qt. ‘ J- " a.... .. ' ..' ,_,_"\J.' l,«')'-3 ’ J. i ‘1 -i . .’ 2 .L’ » ‘ 1‘
, «
r. ' ' '1 v r . r ‘ ' o “t r .
.,.. _ ‘ ‘_o’. ,g , . 1“ ~-' H‘p . I“. ‘ ~ . y 1. \‘ . " ,«1-'_-‘ ‘ . . ‘ f u u- . . . ‘ , .
'.--..¢ . .. - .1; 4"“,J “L. ‘- "13-! .31. ....‘.8.o!.10} Ln 4.; .‘.. «’ 3.“ -.1 .4 g . a... ll"; 99‘ o .s
. '0 .‘
_ .' I" J - 6 p t I . g a - .. .
- v. — \ E-‘ .4 ~‘ - ,u . . p . » - a. up ~- - I. t I .-a ‘ ‘ -, . - u u . -.» \4 - -
‘ ‘ l ‘ . . 0'. v P t f _I B 1 .‘\ . ‘ I . [ oo‘f
Q . I ' - r a ‘ " J4" ‘3 ,4 ‘ ’ .'.(~.‘. A. 9.: [gJA ~_) .5 v ()1) ‘ 411 a.() w‘ i. ”‘15! L, '4 ‘ .H.‘ u, (‘5 4 {‘3 a
I‘-
Y 1 a 4 I ' . .‘u 0 I -‘ ‘ ‘ f. - a‘
. ‘ ‘ -"‘ .' "’ ‘ _' - ‘ ’r -_- . . ‘ ' I o ‘f “ u“ ‘ ‘ ‘j u i U. ‘ ‘ '\ o ‘ I . u ‘ \ N: I!
I ‘ 1' 'o- 'J ‘ .) t .‘¢ ‘ 1 . s, V. h} ‘3 '."- 5‘).- z‘. . .A. k..‘ o‘.\.v‘ j; I‘ ‘ ~‘-' ‘5 i- ‘l I P". .3.- .o . .31’
Q ‘ v
u‘r 3-”- .2 - p " .. . c’ .°~ .»"-' f. 0‘» ~ - n- e " -- ‘-. a arr a - 1-- —-r\ r
. _-‘~- .._ , - -: - . , _ ._ -.,-.- - . -_' ,-
0 u . 'f.’\" U ‘.I ~3 K} " t‘. ' ‘ A I l .“&.'J‘ vl $'v.o =10 o's . 1 - ’. ‘ l 1 .' .. )‘k 2:, L59. .r-U' v‘.‘"}\. .o'} L v' ‘_.' " '. VI. ‘.-'¢ 9.
_ f " . 0 g n- " . 4- a - u- , .
' % ‘o"" ‘x_-. rm». 1" ‘g‘vfiw {rfu .. '\ . V ‘, "f "on" ’. 47,. 'r-_|~r's3" “F's-,§ I'f _. ‘f"_ 1;" \‘ .
l .. u'. A. _} 4' '-.. I I -, V , , ,, I V9 33/ 1‘ . , ‘ .1 ,~ t”, .0 H {1 .‘.A‘ ,.u. k . ‘u' ‘ «I. . ‘If ‘9“ ,-
,, -~ .3 . r n 'N r '1‘
‘- ' - . au. 9 lfi _ Ir‘v'n. _ ' .__ ."'r '51 v. "c‘ »\'-«~
an»... 5 AA) w .. . .11... '3‘.) -r.- .‘fi.. t - ’L' '
‘ f‘ O I ('0 a i. y l 0‘ M (( " F P fi" ‘ . ‘1‘ o. ’ -‘
. . . 7.. , ‘ 1- -. . .Y. . '\' . . J , \ ... OH .. 'f“- . - . . .
(“EA 4!. .3 -. A, “AMI ' "4'1‘ 1 L1 '0 c) . . J '.‘ . B .' f -' .-.: ”a. ‘: '. .,qo‘. .. t’n'u.‘» ‘0‘" ‘u' I 4‘.- J.‘ -" ‘1 film“
a. -~ e- ' .. - ,~ ' ,.., I 3':
, . ! . 'x '. 7‘ . , -_.. .. . . , X ‘, . .
0“le .L.’ ‘-.“1J.L'J Whi.’ n. f ; 2 ‘3 . 3"“; ‘“"'v‘ ’- . ‘_.,{_.

4

Level II - (my a transcript of the responses which judges eeuld

score or not , depending upon their preference.

Level III - Only the psychegran or scoring m.

The general plan of the study was to compare the consistency of
personality ratings by three interpreters: (a) lhen ell interpreters
has access to the some level of date, end (when each interpreter
had access to different levels of data. An experinentsl group in
which levels were varied and s. control group where they were held con-
stant, were used. For the experimental group, each interpreter saw
one-third of the group under each of the three levels of data. In
this way, the idiosyncratic effects associated with each examiner
were divided equally among the three conditions. For the control
group, the interpreters all had exact]: the same amount of information.
The dependent variable in this study was s. "weidated'I agreement score.
This was taken as indicative of the amount of agreement between the
three judges, and the score ranged iron 6 when agreement was perfect
to 1 when there was mains]. disagreement. The authors fomd no sig-
nificant difference between the mean-weighted ayeenent scores for
the control and experimental groups. They concluded, "Little inform-
etion is sacrificed by relying on these quantitative data. " (31.9.»
scoring record and culinary.)

One night have several reservations about the methodology en-
pleyed in this stun. For one thing, it is sanswhst mpersinonions
end clusy. The whole experiment could have been run without ever
using a control gronplgi! an analysis of variance type design were
employed each subject could have been his own control. Moreover,

Ive
, x ‘ v e e“. 0" ~‘. .- " Io . » or ‘9,- - v V.712» f ‘.. I . 'J‘ I . .4 .—. a: 4‘ .‘ . H‘ P .‘
4- '.‘)‘ "< C. b ' J“):- ..” L..l-.\: at? ‘l‘lL)' ~41.) Maid .. ‘J t. J. ’24.“... ‘,‘| CI "0' .'.. 'fl 5...; .-..,‘ .
e . e 1 ..
u e . . . ‘ - ~ 4 r , > .s .~ ,~ r _ ._‘ _. ' ‘ . ‘
. :11. ,5 . .1 .m .31: * ct... :1. Q11‘; :1; .11)..
w . - °- .v . . - , . .' r‘. ._ J-l- ,1 1‘ ' 1' ~..
. '.:“I‘~.‘J;v:t _‘ I . 1’ g.‘.,_ s. f c: ' ”\I) _ ‘ I ‘1} ""’8|s, IE*J,"..’1-:I‘I\J g“ .‘. ‘. Q- ._ “x
fin e ._ t. , .'. .. ,._ . , ._. . ; .. v-1. ‘ . -.‘ .. _A. , j-p
IC' 3") -' 3.8 i- 3- - ’ > "5"): 3: J C ”Du 91 :m .w 4.0 '1 e. .L 3.. 3. . Lj L.‘
I e A
‘u 1 ' e , t . 'e ‘. ‘ ~ _ ' . \ . e,‘ . ‘~ .. t. ‘g . -\ _- s (1- .‘h 5 .6 9 ,e . -I‘ .. Q. ' - P1 .
73' rd ‘9': " 1' ... -. S 173 '. '\ I- j 3 .' a a .. ..- 1”,??? z f1 - t) .F'ia‘ -\ ..\. u ;J£L‘}.}:.J. (3.! Emma: .1 ‘ ‘ ' 5.3%:
~ \ eJ
' . e; _ I ‘ e' 4 'v- I' ” ‘ r V ,. . -
"m; "1' 71 '. ‘.- : \1 4 M16 ,SJ.13~ : .20 ..-;1 M91 11“.: .«Ifl‘ 0-. tang-9130.9 sis-:1
' ~ -. " ’- . . .- in I. . .- ,. 1. ’ . r' A.., cm. 3.1;. 4,. .,, , ': . .7
“f: {“L‘ ‘ '5‘“, ~L 3“ ~v- ‘ ”1'! ’ '1’: 1‘ It 054 .. 5 a; 4.x) 4L ‘ 3.0;. J “3'1.“ .1. .3. 1.41.! (I: 3 24 3991.1 $115311
U. h
, . ".\ -" o,’ .3. .- ' ' l e no -.' . A I y .- —.-. ”A, j. .. q A. g; .s’. ' , F‘s. f ‘b \ .- <‘ ,. ~.' I D I. .‘l, i :. ._' '
“:4. 1} L: ‘3‘ ’ . ) J - .‘ .I .125.” ' ‘ -1 r' i 1.3 .Lu 1. 9TH». J-v ”3.94.5 (u .- ..-) I :1.) I. sent. 9 rd..- .1 :_.J . x
.1 ‘ 0 o c J . .- .Oe ' . ‘ - u‘ H v). . - .. a . ' .' ‘ . '. - . . J 4 g."
'r'; ‘th .I'_'?3V}: I Aui JJU 1.1.1. {13 g ‘ Q “:Jr A ‘ J~;\; :‘ ~ . .1 “ - u 'v-u') .- 0 ii 3(l J J O f t .' In) ‘ a
' I - “k "- - ‘~:‘ . M l - ~“- '7 .~ . rm f - ’ ' V 1"} n 1 N. In ... ‘ »~~- - v ~ us I 1“ Q N - . " :3.
1.1; . .35v «1..., .5' - ’ ' . 1f 1‘, 32$»... it) ...:~.).‘ .1 , .433 -..l...:.- 1 A!;(' f '- a; .. '_. ' 1.. W
: - - 'eu - I . ‘ ‘- r f ,A- . . .v, » - ~ , . ’.. . .h 'A . 0‘00 . 33:. s .5 ‘r 4:... r o,- \ .1. ’.'~
21.6911... .123“ go .(‘3 "5' 1- .L1 ’ i 51' 4.3:. )‘k'fi' . 1'. -.'- 11L, : L" 03:0 344-. )Ip'; 8.101. .d I? Lit: “i: 4 “kl-la
i‘, 'er J. , - ‘ ‘ ' .' '.. .x' 4 ~4. . “lo ’0' .e I” I "".' ‘ c‘ - '~k ,(.' a I :7. x U‘ I“ r». Te—I~, _- r; g. 1 f
“.0 -1; {1" ‘x‘ s ..\1 .’ ) ' . 'so-L LL)-.. v '.1,,.. 0 ) ‘5 :u .1 (1U ‘--_-£l()oaL‘-, { v-SUE)9 "‘"J. L. . H. J ' A. ' --
. ' .1... - , 0. °. "3, ..... . 1 '. h. .9. ,.-.. .g ‘ “ 1- .1. ,. . 4.”: . _ 1.1. .1 '1 ‘
. 120-11.; 1‘3. ’3 1m. .. o. .' .,A.1‘ 1.75.133... ~ {1- LE. t“. .1 331.1 1.1.13 ”13“? ‘3 £519.. 11.1. -' "J z '154'0 173.
10" 1‘ . e I?" )1 fie; I... - ~ -- - -' . - to. '- . ‘4'; ‘e 'b‘ee ' 9.5:. 117‘
. °'.I.‘_)38 ) 1.3"“. .:‘ _ r" :h n ‘t' - 1.1.. )t/v ‘ :3 3“ .Ir (’ ‘ r1; 1 L, .\.11- ' 5f» ~"~LU~'~ L'AS ’- '.)rd ‘3‘: ‘d’ 13:! ..
.I '. . . . L. -3 .‘. . . '- ' , , ." ' '1 A ., 7.0. . '. ' . . .. ..." .'. ._ .. . 0., n'u
"‘».' -J I". 1") "J .15": .3 {P}. 1' HAVE} ' ..C 3 11.1.1: ‘1 MI _E (.1 ’ 1 ' ., "'..‘.‘.DILC : .17) L; ..-..‘.-:’: .- i.:’:~i .1 Lf' ‘
-‘ - x ' r r v» '1' "'r" .1 -~~- r- "' :3 H "" 1° "s‘u'V‘ n' ~°.- I“ J 1*“ f f "1-1, ro' r} ‘-.' 5-
‘ LJ' ' ’ I. 1.4“} N 1"" ‘4 -»- -~-~ .3 .J. .v) P: 11 J 1.! is ) .t - l; ‘. . . 4 .. ‘1".t \. A»! 411.) t I‘ H ,‘J-J ?, ‘1 LiLJ
» ‘ 1. . . . .'-' r. 1. . .. ~ *‘ r . . .. . . ,. .. -54. .. . , ~~ J.
"3 .L‘3 (WI 33".11 J ‘. ".. ‘1 1') - . o J 11532.; .- ..‘.A .- A..-:1. I L... '.L.‘-CR { ”SW 4'17 3.11.1 19-11:“. .3. u',’
.. . . a. . . .. v . f. .0 ‘ ,_ ”I A._r, v. J. ,1“ '."-. f
‘Ir‘ ' .m‘ z t) '1 .1 .1: '15. 'fr‘-. . .\-.= 7.1.3.193w ,., 1:1 1;) .1." pm. 1'1: .m. .1 -3 ,2 ’3 c [1.1; ..L .1 .I‘f
.1 .1). .'. ”[4,. ‘1' - _ :1 , . r- 1, . ,.1...,.(. .E 4...
.... 1 .1 r. A. ,.=.. ,- .. Q ML": 10 1: 1:. . :2. .1101; 11. 1.4.21. 1.7.11.1 01.4.1.0 .. 11..-
e, '1, 1 4- . 2 P. .:. f. t. . , t. ‘wl '..E- 1" Fe '3 :- . 1- r
' O 3 0 J- ) L ‘u U J~ r; L‘ \1 . ..‘ i:- 5’ AA} fee3Up .’ 1’311L’5‘J. K(;f:{‘1:'~ i-C‘O Ioo") .l "7“ 1 " -'.*~' «‘3
‘1 ‘ "1' ‘ r ' .- "r _ N o"- 1- "a _s 1 '
K O X]: .J':' 171.143.. $- ‘ILZ‘ 'rJ‘It/ r." .1. ‘3; ' .1.’\ l .- \-;
" r I
c . ' .. ~n n ~, ‘m . . ,: ". .5 1’. . T! ‘1 . ‘fl 0 n ‘1 s
«1.111 3.3.3.01.- 1'7. -1 .- a 1.} 2.1701: {-3110 2.: ISV'DSQG'I .1431: 1 1.. 1. .1 -.r.«..r. J. 1- 314.1 hr .
. - '. - ‘.. . . .. . ‘ +9 .3 .‘...'. .. . o! 3-: ”Vii. ' I"\ r 1'?
1:11 J‘IIOI:U-LJ'.L!T?\£LI. r bf‘rf');l®'u 34‘. m .L ‘ ._.‘,ii....1.“.{- €33.11} 'If. “ o '1; W C: IerLL ’- :4. L ;'.’K\).'.
I‘ ' ' “1. I‘ l " ’ ' ’. ‘ 4'- '! ' ., j. ~. ' - e . I. r *r4I‘ ,_ _.’.. . .f "' 1 ~‘
.- .; f ,. 1.301»; - :11?" ‘11 . 1. ‘ ’fl’) . 5.1L]. ..1..'.L.;1_.-..‘..9 99.1.Offxn‘ “u: . 1, Ma .13... ' .-
' " ‘ “ - " . '2." " 1 ". AL. r .59.. .
. .._, . .. . . , ._ .. . .. . . .. ‘7' ..‘ t .. _ (1" . _‘ , ‘_ ..
r) '1‘.".'-J“ {lg iz‘f . . ‘l ' a f); I . L 'n‘v!-." :’ 1 (5' (I: I “ ‘ .—‘~ 2? tier; {LI-2 J. v‘il 1.0 .\r . (if! .- .C l‘ .‘ 33“ I '-.—' ”z.” 1“}. 6‘.
cue ~( ’4. v ’0‘ " “'"’\ "' ‘2 ‘ "r ‘ e“ (\ “r '1 rt“, I “1.? f‘ .$ 2? ‘ , .’
Q .L'-.'V(.'~1"TO-' ' c . ' A..-' {A ' v -‘ ’U 4.1"“..- 1.1: (I: ‘ '7‘": i: It as-) , .3 J): ”dif‘i- .. 0.44s. .uu‘ ( 1.. (1-:

5

nowhere in the paper is the weighted egreenent score precisely defined.

Finally, a weighted agreanent score which is based on on]: a four-

point rating scale obvious]: is not capable of very great precision.

Since the studies cited above seen to leave the issue in doubt,

it was decided to incorporate in the present study an investigation of

this issue as well as several others. For the purposes of the experi-

nent, the information obtainable from the Rorschach was attributed to

three major sources:

1.

2.

3.

The psychogrsm. (A Beck (1) type psychogrsm was need. Any
records which were originally scored by some other system,
were rescored by the experimenter in the Beck systm.)

'lhe core-concepts. For each response in the protocol, only
the najor noun was selected.

Verbalisation. All the cues of verbalisation such as- 'style
of expression, choice of words, vocabulary, etc.

The following questions were asked posed in this paper:

1.

3.

Are there certain differences in Rorschach interpretation
which are attributable to the intu'preter rather than to
the records presented to hinfl

“Does increasing the mount or information W1. affect
the Rorschach interpretation” If this is the case then do
all of the various som'ces of information add infomation
which is necessary for en interpretation?

Are the Rorschaohs of different patients interpreted dif-

ferently‘!

’ 'I" - f . ~ . P \ . ‘\ ’ -. :
‘ ' O A ‘ l - l ‘ ' \ ‘ 7 r 1' -\ _'_ “'._ ' ' ' ‘ ~ .' ’- . ' , v ’ ' _ 1 ' ' '..' ' 0" .‘\ "I ' A ' ‘
W’.‘ ‘ v " l ‘ ' ‘ x . .~. 5 S... - f‘, . ‘ J— .' -v "1J‘J u}..- ..- -._.'.)1.‘ . '-. .3
r. . ~. “ .... ‘ 3 .. ,“ .. .- ‘ ‘q ., .rn. - , ' 'l . '. : n
\ ' ‘ - v _r-x- - u- ‘ , , .1", t _, 1‘ . _ .,
'4’ J. “' o -T¢ .0. 1‘? ‘ . ' l ’ " \ .L|.¥ ~.’ «I " " ‘4} ~' .’ ’ ’ J‘- 3. .r‘J 1‘.‘.lot" 'V 5
o
- I ._‘ u ‘ 5‘ ‘ , f',‘ , . A .1 , - o 4- :. 0' f "' ’.- " H , . a ’
‘., , .._. . ',‘ ..' ,,‘ ‘ _‘ fl “'3‘ . ~- . . _‘ _ ‘ r ,. .w V .. .4,,~: -~ .._ l. . .
Q '. . '._ . "K. a --‘. . ‘ '. , _~.. J , n, "t’!' ‘/: \.'_,._‘. 'l. "lyrnfic’ 3.L -.s. - . ....).—.. _
‘5 f, . '~ I“; . ‘ f A I ( O' r - I u" r. '
‘ ‘ ' ‘ ‘ x “’1': . ‘ ‘ \ _' ‘ _ ~ -‘- " ' .‘ ' "~ ' .
‘0 33 \ .Hy ' ‘ ‘ A _ . ' .. ' ‘ J l n l‘. \ ' .- \f‘ . s} ‘0’“ .'-=.V 1.4 a '- - 1 .¢ ~"L‘
‘
o n ‘ o f I . s a . g . .
"pf -~-' . ' .- “'-'l:“r' H ,.-., , _r -: 4 -_o‘ .' , ‘W I. 3-4. .. ‘~ ,. - ‘bv‘ - ‘.4-  ,. go .. ‘ ,«r F‘l’ u
i 3. '13. W ‘ ' ' «I 'u *A -. ‘ t. » . '3 J' ‘.a ‘I . . "an .r- ..'~'..".’ flak. . v' 3.» IL"- ..‘L. n) 3.3, \H. “gain 4.»)
.l 'o I.
".- ‘( o‘f‘ ¢| I! " '1! ' . ","f 1 ."‘ l"\ r: ' I ‘ . z'f‘ - V\'.\ 5_- 'o ‘if 7?- ¢ OI
l .. 1 ‘ ‘ ‘~. \ . .‘ }‘ I K.’ . . l . .. ‘.r' J. 4.. ‘ J ‘-. ..Os-J v ..'..- . ‘ -‘J.
an

Juan

..' 1.. ‘.. ..' . . ' , .. ’.f. . fl - ‘ ‘. .'.. .J.. ' 7. " -..'.
_.n , u-ui,.~, "73"1. -r:, 3.0”.- w‘ - at”) r:o.t:‘“m->..;-_

: “5‘s?" 0 ’ f:

' o

' , f o 5 n,

._ a . ‘ {r -~ ." H." »- . , ' ‘ ‘.‘. , E “n’ _ -‘\ $1 .-~ICI“."..~" ‘ .5'1‘ .
J In. C. )u , \h-- . .l’ . ‘4' ‘ ‘ J- '."' ’ up\ "0 . . . 41‘ ‘ -. --
N ‘ " -' ' .'-' w . ,, » ' ‘ f ”‘1 - ‘ it". ' ‘ 3 "fl." 1‘ v 1.’ -'.. .- ' 4-.” n c"

t -| -. .5. ‘ L | ’ ’r) I J. A.., J.\;\J\‘ _-‘1 .;“.. ‘ , . o V‘ cLu-‘ t \ur 2. .- u-“ '\’3 _.I'

j .‘i . ..,~,. .54. [,1 ,. .. L .. .,.;.,.. ‘ , .. ' -. ._.; £7“ :‘ 0.. W, -‘,._ ,)._,

.44.“ 3 a g... 7 w. .21.. .7 ,.; - .- ~-.‘., ,2 .. ”Min: 11‘.- 27! I)». -'. .. I. I

,, " r P‘ ‘9‘ r , 5 \ ‘O ' '31! -n c" N“! ' . . 4‘ . \"--' .-« U o- t—- n '3 ."l’
A ‘ . - ‘ .» . -,‘ .-. * ' - ‘ i ‘ u' t . ' - . ‘ - .
’..a.'- Os.‘r"“' '}.\: r-" '.5.‘, " I "0 3.. -A.c01 -‘~-"-- 0 1“ 1\'J- '5‘. ~‘ .\~s’ I"-

J . 4.

:\_~,-f_ .xp‘ 1' -~ 1‘5 e; .--I F'fP;-‘o . a d)" w. '.v . \ P? F
O -‘ . . ‘-‘ . ' K‘u- “ LA)‘ ‘ 1. fi‘- ‘...; JQ ., )3.)

_ ’ fl , z. I p . d I a .' ' ‘

- Ir.- -7 9-1-, '.« ,~ ,...‘ 5v. . .‘ I‘ -x‘v.‘.' '- .av. ~ -. . ‘ ' .--.-.w~ - .4 3 - I

-‘ x .‘ f ‘ . ~ . . ‘ U .' ~ - x ' f -' -‘ .' 1 -. ‘ . ‘
j. . 't; '.J v1.) ‘-.‘--)..- ‘I'. - J-‘t-I oan-Jlk . V ,‘{ - A «-I }J‘ 1‘ 9 .33 .nOA‘r "“OL-’v""u r ~ “
, '

"r (ruv ~ r v' . 0 m“ 'A r «r 3- xw’n (VP ' <fn1" WNW} "s
..I..0..-.,)'_- ’.‘i~ - l -O 17‘ [LC ‘.q \ 3.19 , I .‘s -~'/

13- " 1

I .” C 1 l .
. .. .‘ .‘n ‘.' ov 2.,- ’. . . '. -,. 3-. . q a.» .y .. . on 1 r y" W!“ t
o 1:. ‘ ' 1' ' ' J 'i‘ .‘r' a“) " |J.’.‘ ’_'.C - ' {11‘ -' l“

7 ' b“ ‘.o I , f; .. -' - I K - .. .' ‘. “‘l ._»o. a \ . .tl‘I .- ,- ~-. . c ~ . ‘0 .~ .
.30.".Lifs ;’J.1.'..\‘..,..;.=,... ..-,'J.:_-' :..z'.u nu. ,n‘ J,:.J03.f.:. ”)Itu _)I‘..-§J?3'1t.‘ff§. at?!) a. '

.. . . y" —I _o . , _ ' ‘- ps t _ t I. - "k ‘0 .‘ ‘ \u . ‘ f‘. 'o'\ 0'. .- v‘ -.-.¢ to 'r- u a ' u - ‘.- , ‘. :-:.
.3 5.. '-mt 5,! :‘utf‘ .' ~ In“ ,: “- 4.4L 'u'. .' . m; "- . 9.3.) .I 3.1.1 'A-ZKML‘JH” (N . .1 I.-
.I ' o . .“ 3 J ‘. . .‘ '. ‘~ . . . .. 4- " '3. . . -p‘. r ‘ v '3' .- a: g . .' - “v f . w
51.0.3}! '3. ”I .2.‘ Y i. '. .7: U!) - .l ‘4 '...' J 13.1.. .20 ":5; .C' ~ )c? 4.9 '« ) 1.3.1.3 a" 1".'.-..‘ ...O . ML."

1” 11:30“ _s. ‘9‘ '.IQ'J:

'.a

p»

monomer

Interpreters

The interpreters were five clinical psychologists , four of when
are staff members of the Vi Regional Office, Mental Hygiene Clinic in
Detroit, Michigan. The fifth interpreter“ a staff umber in the
Psychology Section of the VA Hospital in Deerborn, Michigan. All in-
terpreters have had at least five years of Rorschach experience.

Rorschachs

The stinks materials were 20 Rorschach records selected from
the clinic files. The records were pulled from the files at random,
and the first 20 Rorschachs which met the following criteria were
selected for the experiment:

(a) Between 20 and 30 responses per record.

(15) An average of at least six words per response.

(c) The Rorschach was neither administered nor supervised

by any of the interpreters in the experinent.

Every record was presented five times, once at each of five
levels of information. The five levels of information were desig-
nated as Conditions I, II, III, IV, and V.

In Condition I, the Rorschach psychcaem alone was interpreted.

In Condition II, the Rorschach free-association alone was in-
terpreted.

Genditien III twisted of Just the core-concept of each response.

ISI“'._‘ "(tr . "1"(‘.' 1
. '~ .. . .. i “I r. . ..,"' . e , .'. o. .L .' ,."1
' t?» ..I u: ”v“ 'r." 1. 5:51.: r. ’-‘-. _ "' ‘1’»er '- ._I..’ :1. ‘.9-
v .. . . - . “ ~ ‘. ' ,“ ‘ e a. 'q‘.‘ I ~11 .- ‘ C. l. 1' ~ _I' - I\ o ‘r’fi‘txz . “¢"\.- *0. ,u \
>2»; . . 71L '3. . ' ' .1 Q “‘ .t'v‘ I31. ‘...."?,9e.a .~.‘v 13th.! 4.0 MW- -..“. .- LPN Ci 4-
e O _ r ,u.‘ K“ . Q - _\ . .. I ....l‘ O 0- 9‘ I. . a. e e D I ‘ 4.1--
v ‘ ¢ ‘ o. ‘ e 1' ‘. é ‘ .‘ ._ "‘ . . f ‘ .
'..‘ -- . WI -..A... ~ . 3 .e . 1.933 1‘ 1 3:33! .[ -u .1. ' . ‘r- .-.. ,.. '_ ‘._. - 'I.‘ .W
7’ '1, . e . . _ "I t . .~ ~ "' ... n . I. -. L :- , ‘ 7 ‘ ' ' e ‘2‘ , I.- .- J3“ ‘ ' V. . ‘u J . .r ’e-eC'
in .- .0,.: 2‘. .:.:..~.: ,1: {UL ”get... u. c {Lin-.1. - .. -) . a . 13 - .. v... ...: . ,u .1: mow”... ..
‘0 C h \b-
\w. v .I'fh. ..4 .‘K ‘ “3-" -- (5-31.07 W ‘1 -- p9 ' _. :3- ' " 5n or. f j e up . - —" new, +5! ‘.vve e, '
~- a- ’e .1 ) - 44' L‘M‘n)‘ t u 14 A04} .3. O —l t.) .5. d u a K J ‘1‘.) J’J- ‘ v I \ - ’ ‘ I ’a * I L .e ‘ 1% ~ I'vj
'5 'IIN'C‘ .er.‘!..‘t ‘
.111 ‘M why. . ‘.
.. ..‘3- f- e. '- .. _' , C. -_. . ,s , -f e . ’ w ,e, . ’..’ . ‘ A .. _.. . m . . 1. ‘ Ar .-, I . . .fi“
:2 '.L.‘ .'.. " f.‘ ‘-- ‘ . ...ALOJJ‘I 1".)"-i3v.e'z.'.).'.- '.e’x‘d 9'31733 0.5.. '.L'.‘ “e e .3.“ If!“ . ‘ 3'11 .5.
P 7a“ ' ‘7. ' ' V - " . " a ." ‘. ' ‘ .‘e.
‘ . '. . ' ff_. .- \ e le- "T ”at. t “ -. V, ‘\ ' | U n o I
- J. Li. '. .- . I" HOfi- .k’UJ._'JIq :)'Ia\ I . ..r“ Jim"? “:14. ¢ - . ._' 2 I. _- ' Ant} flu "e W’
. '. '2 . - '.. G“ ' 1.1. .' J. ’ ‘ .'. - ' . “ . ' ‘.u I" Y-
, r e o . . ‘ ea . . Q _ _ . r- I . . .e. ‘ .4 e _ t, . at, _ e v.
‘ .J “I - e‘. 1‘ .Ja'lo.. .C'LA. (’I-{L’ w. 92;. .:.J‘_ (5! «(3‘1 )" ’3.L\" I \’ \JqJnefi P.“ A ..f.
1"? ‘0 .‘t‘ e ~~¢' ‘ | ' 0r ‘5“ ' 'h:’ I’ l
3- e...«If£.L ...‘ "- He :0- ..n? . ‘ .
a
. ,. , . . \
He" 1‘ 4 ' iii, .‘~ ""1’.‘ ’ .I ,"r‘hnt' .- .‘r‘V‘. {‘3‘ I" F '\.I‘r. - el '
e. . '~ 3... ,3 J. :,.. 411‘.) .M J . .u‘ Inga v -51“:ka v";
a’e-. ”8'” ‘1‘...) "L,“ (n '1.0" (9."; 3.8!. .' I. " -, 1}( Q. . ‘ '1 r “I . (Q '.
q '1‘ ‘ ' .M ’ .0 a. l 4. _'.--.0 \J g . - x! ‘J vi. ' x ' ~: " e u ; ‘ -- .
. 4' H'fl'r N y \ r' 1' '1' «r -‘ h‘- .- ' .~ ‘3 I” ~' '1' e .- ~° “'nro- r r;- ‘v -' 4‘ '3!- ‘ x r I x "v
:37-oe‘.1 J"'..Fea. {3.12 -.. v. uhdlm C- .LGIA. . ’t.' ”‘4‘." . e‘UIJAbJ‘u {041 1,151. \eJ
3 - ' J. - n ...
. I . I -.- . o - . 4 ,; - o .. -. a_ _ .
..._’f<;_';1f.qr'f,f) “'1 u "'z‘ '3‘ v ~‘.‘ .\ "JAE-é I11 '.‘s .4 .LG 7;; T...'~ '3‘}
.1 o 0' ‘ 3‘ LC t j' ~. . r e ' t. .‘ j ' I . 0'}, .' J" ’ rx \0 \ u ‘0’ ‘.‘¢-.- - r\ a" qr.“ ' yr.-
4' y k «'.r ' f) i . J‘ l' ’ a. e‘ ‘ )1 '.(J ‘ {I . )1 ile'.‘ ‘ ‘f-E. ... e )‘. J 3 -~ ' . I C. ' ‘ t \k ! '2‘ «1... a. A“. a 1' .‘ a
’ " _. 0 .l a: ’ .9. . ' ' N 91‘] _ ,.' e'_ . e". “ 4‘
t; I ‘t .|‘ t -. a --«. . . - --‘. . . ‘ I‘O U f \, . , "' - .‘A .' 0 ~ n- e, .
M J J . H u ...5” J. '1’»! -..- :. .’. .1.) x5! ‘ - .: t7 - 3‘ e {If . i 551'“; in... A ‘7‘. t w. 2‘. ‘l...
‘ n" ‘2‘ -v ~a I}. i t‘ r 1. .- 2’ tr! '1‘. 'I' \ e
e '- ALT-J e '._ t «4.1. e a .. 1.... u: 1‘).L\ if} .Jv ex: 3 .- t ‘
-. 3'- ,r 'Hrfi 't'. T‘ '1-‘)'.r ’..\ ' e run -~- {"\\7" ”1 r1 5', a’r-v'Ht 1 , . I. t ‘n‘ :JgiK I " w!
’ > ‘ ' LR. MJvr'v ~' ar-’ 5. ._, I.“ ”30! u .045, .. 9.3. '.- 4 . Oe' ‘ J ‘ A. .1.‘ 3. ...}.‘d... ‘., ‘l ,_
r‘ . r th ’ I 15"! . ' ,.‘ I .- '“. n -~ .- 0T" ‘0 ' "~:f\")l‘r--( r I . " .. ‘q ‘ f Ar o' '3
t“ , ‘ “ e . “.1 flu} _.ejo . e(y. .. ' a." ‘ , 1,3...“ :1 .3 . \. .L- ~j._\‘.l‘ ...) I4 4. )ie. .33; e 1 . , , , ) I: I . " )\.t ,i‘L
0'. d ‘L
t“ 5d ‘3‘..:'}.{'.3r
' I; "\e0 "in" n ' ' w" ‘ ' ’x’ f "f f, . 5' ’.y \f ‘ 'n'"‘ ! "{‘ v. ’ f ‘ fi‘ . ‘ ,‘d‘« J. . . ‘ I '61 ,‘ “_’ '. ‘l- ‘ ‘.
'v?’ . '. ..._ » V » ‘1’)2).(IO‘. ‘-) l'e'J ~‘l-e~ IdIE‘ 4-) t .. ' - 4.':‘. a I... . K-HL.‘ J . A '(,’\

(e.g. , the core-concept for the response "Two men in a vicious fight' 7'
would be “Two mam")

Condition IV consisted of the psychogren plus the core-concepts
of the responses.

Condition V consisted of the whole record, except the inquiry.

0b: active Instrument for Rorschach interpretation

in objective personality test was used as a quantifiable substi-
tute for the usual Rorschach report. This was the outpatient torn of
the Multidimensional Scale for Rating Psychiatric Patients , (MSRPP)
(11., 15, 16) Each of the 61 item in this test consists of a ques-
tion about an aspect of the patient's personality, and a four or six-
point scale along which the question my be rated. Each point on the
rating scale is expressly defined. A sample _itm would be:

Canpered to others, is he controlled, restrained, inhibited

' and unable to show feeling, or is he more inclined to be
unrestrained , uncontrolled and free in showing emotion?

 

 

Omspigcrnousl: Distinct]: A littie less
Unrestrsined Unrestrained restrained
than average
L 5 I 6
A little more Distinctly Conspim
restrained Restrained restrained or
than average frosen ‘

The 1431?? has been used in previous research with patient popu-

“

"fright! a:J0.t9.§:V s H': mm! '.‘wa. ' Irezrsr‘qa ”"5: mi." in? .fq'o :‘e-o-a'mz: ed: "3.3)
(".sen our?” ed binow

nd’rgeonno—e-zro azii cello. 111-2. ’53:; fever: ezid- fro Earthen-no VI 10:}:th
.zzeanoqes'x ed: to

.‘z'ihrpnt 9:221 3g-30T9 Juana-z eledw 92": '10 Meionoo V notfltno-C

neheéorcj'red'nt commoner: 'so'i immanl avio‘oetdo

«ti-cow: eic’ni.'..i..i'ueur- s as been new Jae: Uthnca'xeq evid’oetdo mi
'20 and! #:162133qu 952': not: aid? .mqe'x dosdoa-iof Lanes on: on? ed‘ud’
(‘12?1222- -. ,ser -.e -... :c’I ot'x: reisiote‘i gnid'hfl :o’i sisoi: Inset? rte-21.4-TL5 efla‘
-ae'.rp s '10 Maiarme ‘eeJ “.... at 3121913 I6 3st lo done-T. ((31 .311 ..U.)
«site “:0 mo‘: 3 5m , Jinn: met; 2'. "uuei: 9.2.}, 21:3 ‘10 J'ooqes as d’nods not:
or“ no 3211.09; rlon‘ci .Lsse'x :d can rioiaaeup eds :{oidw ‘3HOI5 eLsoa J's/2M!
:2ed Elven .1931; sigma A denim-2E: visa-arms ai: visor. game-1

fibrin-tun: Janis-53:31 .iweuomfi-oo 91’ 2:1 . are are of borne-m0

or? as {ambient "non or? 31: to (antic ‘1 moxie uJ' olden: bets

fmisono gamete-'23 mi- .5911 .‘c '3 Leibniz-mam: Janine-sacrum

 

 

use}: ninth: A simulate”. flamrsnniqsmu
Inabflastt henimtcemfl banis'13'20'm3
sac-ave nadir
d L“ A
zinmuoiqenoo uremic: if! econ eiid‘ii I
no hentnti'ee'x benzene-39:1 lent-eve: '1
none-{.1 cancers 2:ch

-uqoq amiss-q rifle: :‘iSt...;;.‘.'. :21: one t'rrxq' niche m.- mrec‘ asx' “ii 491‘]?

8
name, and several articles about it appear .m- the literature. we
Lorr hes rector - analyzed the test and described 10 personality fee-
tors:

A. Rational under-restraint vs. notional ever-restraint.

B. Mad]: trestmlness vs. Hestile Rebelliousnees.

G. Relaxed contort vs. anxious tension.

9. Sense of personal adequacy.

I. Iotivetion for“ long term goals.

I. legleotml carelessness vs. Responsible Conscientiousness.

G. Obsessive—Phone reaction.

H. Gabe-intestinal reaction.

I. Candie-respiratory reaction.

J. Sen Conflict.

All or the items included in these personality-factors were used,
except for those in factors ”H“ and '1'. These were Included because
they are answerable only from medi‘el histories, and not from Rorschach
intonation. Thus only 1.5 of the 61 items in the 1483?? were used in

this experiment, m, the items which measured the remaining eight
personality factors.

Procedure

In the experinent proper, fifteen of the twenty Rorschaohs were
and. (Five had already been used in a pilot study.) Each interpreter
was first asked to rate the evenege clinic patient, given no Rorschach
information about hit. This wanted to filling out the reting scele
for his stereotype of the average clinic patient.

Every interpreter received each of the 15 Rorschachs. He was

{-3

{42-21) .e'wtmeifl 2211‘: :11. 7:39qu d't Jcrods‘. misfits _{Mevsa bus .2m.to‘.s£
-o.-:-.'i‘. '{Jiienoa-rx ’.‘JZ beditoaob .bne 32.2.9.3” edd' fercisms - 2051921 and '2‘: .1
act-:2

.J.n.’:-e'1$'arrx—'tavo {snoii’oafl .av a‘ntta'xizo'x-zeixw Ionoid'ofl .A

.acoueuotiisdefi efi‘d‘aoH .av :.-.asnMJau'xd’ flbaeifi .8

.notanet swim .av immune beniefi .O

.‘caw’pohs Isnoa'req to some .6

.eicog men-J 31:01: 101 czoidsvtd'oM .3

.aacrxauotd‘ne.’:oanoi: eidimocgeefl .av asensaeie'mo mtoeige'd .1

.nottam'x oidod‘I-e‘dcsmecdo .D

.21014-7‘9126'1 humanist-013330 .H

.mld‘ono': Woman-01M .I

.d'oinnoa ma .12

Jean 919w a-xod‘oa‘l-uzfllenos'mq seed: :11: internal amd'i odd to HA
assumed bebmfions are»: send? ."I" 23:12; ":1" 31030.11 115. seen: 101 tqeuxs
dasdsa'rofi mo'rt ion bne .2329 {casein Lil-hen non firm eidsnwane e'xc ted:
nit beat: stew “PERM 92L? (Lt omit Id on? '10 a}. vino and? .mio‘smolrd
3':th 32.1mm: em" hammer doidw amen at” min-E ,J'mnt'xocpco aw
.e'on'oe'i gdmnoa'zoq

911!b€00‘f.'§

stow adosdoatofi «(311mm ed: '10 nosd‘it‘i .meqo'tq hzsnt'roqxe add“ :11
rename-int 22953 (Jim. 2: milk; 3 it). been need weenie bed evfl) .been
chem-“.1105: on maria, ‘.fnetd‘sq 91111120 933112121“. ad: 9.131 0.1 beams 367.1122 35w
SEEDS annex odd duo <2tLLUi‘1 od‘ beimoazc sin“? ..1id Mods notmmo'ini
..‘l’mmnq 01:11:12: 93.61.1th 96' ‘10 «mice-23:8 air: 10?

saw 91‘. .3-{ostioe'zofi {I 9.er '2: :s‘see bend-2292*: tsi‘e'xqmmi iris-v?!

9
given the Rorschach of am single patient under only one of the five
degrees of information. The mount of information each interpreter
received about each Rorschach record is indicated in Table 1. This
table also indicates the order in which the interpreters received
the records. The interpreters then filled out the usurp for each
Rorschach. ' '

After these data were collected , the interpreters were asked to
rate all the hem it-s according to their applicability to Rorschach
interpretation, i.e., how well they could he.enswered from Rorschach

 

 

 

 

manuals
TABIE 1
WT“. DESIGN
W
W i ..B._ .9. 2 13.
Latin 1 I II III IV V
Square 2 II III IV V I
l 3 III IV V I II
I. IV V I II III
5 V I II III I
Latin 6
Square 7
2 8 Replication of Latin Square 1
9
Latin 11 :—
Square 12
3 3.2 Replication of Latin Square 1
_._...li

 

I a Psychog-am; II .- Protocol; III .- Core Concepts;
IV g Psychogran and Gore Concepts; V .- Whole Rorschach

.4 ~ 31 ." a 0 .' e .
( v I ‘. ' . _- 1.1.10 ~. -4. x e ' ‘ . .’ n“..- .’ , - , '(i ‘e 7‘.’ e”. e . 2- : .. , ‘
.1) - . . U ash .. ..' 0‘ ‘.2 ) .. .’\,-." k1 l J’ -a - ..'. .‘..l-.a ".... .) .‘ne‘ J. ---"(.¢ 3.1".) ‘13- ' ‘4 . .
.I. .

 

t‘.’ ‘ .5. q‘.._ ... 2... . .. .”«‘ . ,‘.‘ ‘.‘r. 1.; {‘f._“‘ r; -‘f ... c' ,) .:.r[,_.',.:j:.-_, V 2 Pi} (9.x 0 1,“, ,r, 'x' I :- 05‘ . _ ‘ "I." .Vflt) ..."
.- ‘J g. _‘.._ .. .’ .I L-_ p.) . .u'. _.A ‘.kxe.". -. e b. .-., \v . ‘J _ Rs»! L.‘. Ole-H." . .-I«, '__L‘ ’ .1..- i «_J -. , . " _ . I
" . ’ I A - ' . 1 . ' :- .u - r. -‘ ~ as a' a $4.9. r ‘ . . - .—
v .‘3 I , , I o, . .3. ,‘ll/\‘ ...~ . Isl\.\r.- e\.- ’I w .. ' .".‘\, cl

I o .. -. w .‘.J ...: .. l .l ' -. . a... - c ’ .. 1 I ' t.‘ ..l .u .2. .. - . '.... '1 - A . , , , . I ’
I: - .~ ‘ a ' ', r4“ " .‘e. s. ~~ ‘ ' .‘ \ ‘ "‘ 2\-. . I " I I; 7 a 1-." a : ' - " .' x l N .\ .
I . . i’ - a .." ~ ‘ J‘ I "J 'f.‘... 'e e‘ .leJ.3.o ‘.3 f.._. I J‘ L“ d -v' 2 «‘2 ' , fit“... .‘.' .‘Ji ...\ ' '
a .‘e . v 's .. .“ a . ' . 'e-| . ‘-

.- .u ~ ‘ .. t. 's E . n- r 1" ‘ ‘e .3. le,‘ ‘. ' e h. v . .- r .
u U 7 .L()... i ..-l- . .1 ' 2'JJ..-’.J. .‘ ‘izu u” I ~'.' ""1 'i- ._'- ”13., .d)‘ “ 1.. ‘1";

' ' I 9
e

e r . . ... .- ‘
' '1. ‘l ‘ :\O‘-".~. " ’ cc ~ Hr,” ' :' U ' “ g «.3 1! -,\"°te. .« - ”4' -. 4-“ .
(e; vs ‘ .3 \'.l ‘ f -'.'» ‘ J p - :‘J ‘ e‘.’..' IOOe". ‘; ..‘r ‘ "3.9-0 r) )i-iu' / '1 §.I‘:} " so. I 9"; .1 e." 3‘ es’J ‘e'oatj J.‘ I

,. . .... o’. .‘..' ‘.t"'...... ‘. , , ,. .'. f.. , . - . ’.i‘ , , e .‘-',_ .‘_-' ’ 'J. "‘ . .1, ‘
..fé‘ 2 t c; \,*r.‘. -) F_ . 'zacii.-ii :nLinixfnin -%fi3?& ILL .. )fic ,ELM {n.32

e

'- -‘ .. x. . . . -. -. .. :1 -_. "‘ ' , '. '..L -I... .2 -.,. .
iwwxo.?-; Loni unnaeh.e cc uLuoo aim. Lieu wen ..9.i ,n0ioaeenqvo.si

'fr z'L-,vr.~-(-";~s'
.1“ ..5 -.).2-s...

. _ .- m1- .

'GfiT

J. ‘- '- 5‘ e --

. . l- . . .. -., -. .~ .. ..
. ' 2 "I'w’fl .’{1 —E‘ ’. .
. . . - .
. l..‘ ... u. ~. t+e$ Jet. . e.g)_‘.\-. ...a e
_._ ovagfiwanen-b-wd- v'fl’dfl-v- *J-umu‘.-Au-¢ a. fl-’.“-I’ on. u~~ ave-Mo asm-ew4.eeo.e-.--e ~ '.r u—wrm .. ‘ ‘.M u "out“-
d - W4.- . ’0 '- ""o- ‘0' a. n-* _. .- eJ-e --\ “dc-eat... o. M‘s-3.1“.“ Joe-4 Mi- ».-- . -.m-e-Lm cur-ans 4‘ ...- C-.§“IA--IP‘

-_~ . .. . . ....g , .f.
I .1. 2‘ 1-. ,4 s i’
'.‘dm..-.. AIL-- .. ‘._“
w a..- -o-ce..~..~~ . ... ...-....

.... , ... 4’
I ' . I . . t . Ififi‘k I 1‘ ‘
~ L ‘ ‘.. -..ilQ... “it . . .
g. ..- ... a- w. 0. vow --7 -W
. - -.. s r
'.I' ' .

I. f '7"- ,<2- .- .' I.. z.
- . I. .£ 1 2- a ernxrn

. ‘ ~e ‘ V ' I
W - ‘ I ,
'~ . 'A .. . .. “ V 7‘s .
u ~. " I! .0
' : 1 t ‘ ‘ |v '
a. a. .1. ~~ . e ‘ \
. ----'.‘.e~— 0-- ‘-“0— e... . a .--.. no m”»w‘.l' “omfimgg..--vmiggou .- rsgpuneegmunfl-n." .y‘- a ......J.
\ s e
e' ,"
. If: 4“
5 ..‘V ' -~
' ‘ - e {I '9“
‘\ . 3 . .-J»«I .'

e a - ~

I -- , o '. .0 J. “ .3 .. ‘4 1. " ..
:I‘I.’IF“.V- 17.}...fzh. if) 1‘; ' ..‘30-.-{:‘.{t"3i .-.

..-

.
0 Anna . e.‘..~ 4'- nauseous-apt- e- ;- 12. v. .. 4. ’.'.'* Arwve- ‘.- n-ae o‘e‘wnm-.ur amuwrou.-s..vsenw~-u“ en. 40‘. *Ma--- ~ -- drums-fl

 

" j J e‘ ‘ O. e“. Q 00’ ‘. b \
; . ,. .. .- A ‘3‘ H " ... ‘. ... .. .~ ‘.
4.. 1'.) III; ‘4 r: ..e‘ be' .x. lino..-" ¢ ) )4..L‘ ‘.)-‘- ‘ -
.e
e '-
. .
.j.e. .
v. 0
.... ‘
a.“ or“- <«-*v-U“e~-.o—— . -n C.'l‘- o. -~.—\.” «0- .- c..;te.-mm.§--e 1--~-eo\ ....a-ue-~.vn.u*w .r-us ‘~.e¢ erg-qt en .0 c~e o~..-ee-s..u.
"..!..~ ' . .~'\ . 'e. I‘N'II. r- ‘ ‘—- I. e ‘

_ . . Q ~ . .. ' . . re’,'~.‘ ’.
.. .... =.2!Ii..‘-\ ,"1(.-. as ...‘..:. ;.'..\..-')C.~2C".1‘~ n: I. I.-"‘.l:;‘CIl~.~{,./a I .-

1- '52..”1‘23“ 93.02... .' is . {23.109-1'41... :‘-".‘.(n. on... ..be’fto..tf)‘e‘,.i i a: k" a

.
q
' 1
u
-4
‘1

10

Statistical Treatment
I. Personality m. A separate statistical analysis was con-
ducted for each of the eight personality factors of the PEEP? scale.
For an Rorschach record, the basic datum was the sun of the ratings
of all items included in the personality factor under consideration.
For maple , if «notional restraint was being investigated, for any
record, the scores of the various items which comprise this factor
would be added together, and the sum recorded. The data for each
of the eight personality factors were then analyzed by the Latin
Square type of Analysis of Variance (8). The desip may be more
precisely described as a five-by-five Latin Square, replicated three
times , m, each group of five Rorschachs constituted one repli-
cation.
11. Asa-1121!. anemnamnm. he of the eight mam-s
described above was capable of indicating the effects of the variables
studied upon one part of the total interpretation, 3,3,, the inter-
pretation of one personality factor. Having split the Rorschach in-
terpretation into eight parts for purposes of analysis, it new seemed
pertinent to recombine than and study the whole picture. This was
acconplished by uploying the following method of analysis. A base-
line score for the "no information” condition was calculated by

cC the average climb rtfihfl-
taking the median of the ratings ,by the five interpreters for each
itaa in the MSRPP. Then, the median scores for all items in a per-
sonality-factor were sumated. When this was repeated for all
personality factors in the MSRPPpne score for each of the eight
personality variables was obtained. These eight scores constituted

Manama? Luci-.133: +338

.1109 cm: 3.1:? 9.22413 1113.). .+3-. -' 32".: :J’amq-e: .'-. .mtggg figfiwfi .I
e9£rY-C-3 ‘2'":‘583 -1 we '.to 1305‘er \ -;"L’;’.’..)U Jury-.3. .-'- :1: 'io rises 20?. fed'oub
writ-fee 9111+ "1) mm: «91:- ‘ {raw 2:11:21: stand 3d: firms-3'1 {Zomba-:09: agar:- ':c’-I
..-‘:o-’:J':.-.--;r:b.‘.‘ 30:: a}. m' 70.1w 1: "37.1.4105? q 91.? £11: bebulom‘: amt]: LLB “Io
x512: 103: @5333} 3.129an 37.11.1231.” 25w mistaken Inuofiom '1‘}. .1Lqmsxe '10"!
retest c.1113 ooh-moo 1:J.§:-':-.-' 321:. it auoh‘av 9.1.? '10 causes ed: “broom
dose '50": stab ed'i‘ “ramps-9'1 aura ed. f.. ..e fiodfegoo‘ .59th ed Mrou
nio‘aai em E's" Ina-$122.: ..s.:i.: 919w modest v3.2! .mrs'zezq J‘n’gie ad: “to
9102!! :-d 1mm .r~:-.' 3.?) rd? .(8) eOI'LBl'xB'J '5: aiaxcisxza ‘10 3cm: amp:
scarf-3‘ In: 3:.- Hr. :1 .m-zsrrpiar' nit-11 evfl- tic-evil 1!- an bee {coach $13319:qu

dig-3': mo Enfmfrtfiramo aricmiomoj'. evi'? '.tr. r. _., dose um ,. :;-9:."}:"

.mia‘m
3332123513 d‘dpke edJ' 'lo writ .1_x_o__i :3; .1131 .»J§T_ :- £953.19 ___ :12 8 av .32

aeidai'mv ed: ‘10 33991119 add * 3235:9311}; ‘10 eIenq-o asw evode Ixedi'zc-ren
«now. art} “3““ ,. 'toiicm'xq‘mi'ai Lso‘od' edJ -.o 3131; one noqn beiw‘e
«at deadw'zofi 91:1" 3.111;? 313qu .TOJ‘Ofll vfthnoaceq mo ’10 noiiare'xq
bear-ea "on 0‘1: ,cinmme ‘10 :'-30'.;'.‘th To?! 3313:; Juan 0.1113: uotd’sd‘e'nvni
33w eid'l' .e‘mJoiq 310ml 9d,? 'C“'v'-+-'-5 bra: -*:.e:.{.+ s-nidnmce'x o." meal-heq
and A .alc'cLe-tn: lo bed: 1:11 332-1121012120“: 921:? mimics» {d hedatiqmoos
‘05 hes-smelter; new mid-times "motdm-m'hi' on" ext! mi 91093 anti

uncut.” .mJn ..;..-. _., j _ '

doze 1:01 stern-upsets! WEI 9d: {0“, 33511.31 91.13 '10 anthem ed: nut-{nu
‘ 415:; s a]: emit {is 10.1 amuse Miami aria ,rzen'T rm mun. *mn
Us :02 beineqe': arm em: nedh’ .deannu a: -::-:ew 'x: in c‘t-"Jifmoa

dn'n be 9d: '10 done '.ro'l moss arm “FEM; ed: at mod 13'! ‘ciimnoa'nq

iz-iud'ld'auoa 391023 trials need.” .mm...- 36.. .mw acidshwv tiwnosuon

a baseline or I'no information" condition. Similarly, for an
Rorschach interpretation, the sun or the scores of all the it“ in
a personality factor were computed. Thus, there were eight such
scores for any Rorschach interpretation.

The eight personality-factor scores for the baseline condition,
and the con-espming eight personality-factor scores for any '«
Rorschach condition, may each ‘be considered as a separate m
of scores . Statistical measures of pattern similarity have recently
been intensively stuiied (4,7,17,20). The D-score, described by
Cranbech and Glaser (5,6), is very sensitive to differences betwaen
patterns of scores. In this euperiaent, D—scores were computed as a
measure of the difference betwaen the pattern of scores for the hue-
line condition, and the pattern of scores for any Rorschach condition.
The D—score was canputed as follows: For each personality-variable,
the baseline score was subtracted from the Rorschach interpretation
score. Thus, there were eight deviation scores, one for each per-
sonality variable. Each of these eight deviation scores was squared.
Next the squared scores were added together, and finally the square
root of the sun was taken. The resulting lumber is the Mouse.

The 75 (15 Rorschachs x 5 interpreters) D-ecoros were the data which
were used in the statistical anaJysis. The data were then analyzed
by means of analysis of variance.

 

 

- a
. ' . ‘ ) z. 0 - l - ‘, ' v ' ., 'l -.
. . ... . . - . 1 r e r a \ _ I J
".~|;- a... '- z . i1 _' {I. f\ L1. - :‘> . J; ,_ i. ‘3 f- .1- ‘J. .. ‘ l~ _f_
‘- .. .. t _ . .. -. O . ..
‘ ' . I u' ‘I W I r F‘ ' .' : .' \ -"‘ .' "(a ' .c ’,e.o-) "' ". "t .‘."¢.'r‘\‘
n . . .. . , . 1. . ' _ _ .
"V : a _ a s i. '4' ) a. -' I ‘ - ) - I. " e l. ‘0 I d a)‘.‘ ' U ‘.n .\ de l J.
h ‘ .0 ‘ . a ‘. d.- ' *‘ '- 3‘. I.
n 9 e ‘- ov-4~--1 - O ' ' " l ' ’3‘ ‘ . "'7 .'u ‘ '
. . . , - fl”. 3 . \ y a, 1 .I H. .- - _. Q .. .
l,“ - I: '. ' > . \‘V '1 ' . n‘... . I'I‘fiJ)’ {grim . in". 1.,20. e .IJ __ IA.-}\- . 1 ..
‘ ‘ ‘ lfi on. . < -I :e .I!‘ . ”"f . v C a "a 'I A . . -. ‘ {-
.,. .e .- ‘ .- -. . . . . I. ‘ . ‘ . ‘
. : ~k’ ‘ .‘ ‘ - ‘9' ' f ”'I a» .-¢ ‘ f - ' 4 ) 5' o. '4 (gt-J ‘ *k - -‘ ' . v ‘ I
- o x o - . . : ..'. a- {n
. I . . .' ' I ‘ ' ' ’ ‘ N "‘ .' ‘ \f.“ . F ' 1- a .
. .. . , . . . . . . . - . - r r e ... 1 . r. - , .1 .4 .
t 'q‘u' )3!” ”-.. ‘ .‘ ' l - .’ _.._.._11 -~. .i 1......» .. “TM: \ ...-.- ...,
. .. or- -.
. . e a 0 . '3. f .
e' . a» .... ._ _‘ .,"“ ., 1.. ,a \ .. .‘ .‘,~-" ....r..' '1 _ ' .‘
V a "t 'J.‘ ‘ ‘ 1 ‘1 -' 4.\" ’ .‘ .\’ _ ‘ ' .. In. .Ilih d L1. 1‘(" ‘4 - a- . e I De»
'I
. .-.
- ' u . e e - — 1" D e‘ e...“ a -
... .-‘.'.l- '- . . -- . r- “ ' 'h‘.’ \l‘ f' {'3 "v"" f -' - ix" '1". ' ~ sl'a Ut-
’\.J. ~“' «In! '3 " . - ' J I \n 3 . ’ J via.) )(1 J ."o).- u- -. Q Ito..v ... i 1.. u A . o . a a
“'M“ w -e'..l
‘ I . ‘ . ' . " ' - ~ :' "'- ’ .1" r' " \ e "‘ «N v,'\ r I. 04" .’ , . I. I' ‘~ ‘ I .'( 1) .‘ I ‘v
Q-- . ~. ." 7"? . '.‘O‘ t. g ’ r‘. ‘ - . . J J . 'l; 1.: “-’. .I ..‘, . J. . " ... .3. . . J 'L.‘l. l- “k.
f — .. . ea. -) \ '. ‘ .|. a. , . .
‘ .
. . .' .- a , .. . - a r a ‘ 1‘ .v h L . .
e , I v ". ..‘ —_ f‘ El ¢ 1 V ' e‘ ‘ l r‘ ‘-i ’,,‘ \‘. 3- ‘ .‘ \rrcn‘iAf ‘k f9. ,. 3‘;
I ' " . - ‘ ‘ ’ “ ' “ ~..' ~_ 1 . ‘- . . A. - 4 .~ , .... .
3.‘ -‘.- ~ .33).. - '. -.‘Jv e '. .. Q \\J 1 1 "t . Qua! .. \J ..“‘ u
‘ ‘ O O ; \. ‘a -o - fig) '_r
a a . e _ . ., _, ..., ~ .. .. ‘. .‘3 . ...,' I ‘_ .
. . , ' r - ,- .- s .‘ ‘, . 'l‘ ‘ ‘ .- ' -l 1 ' . - \'
.IT")1‘ (' .4 ..}l ‘1'..\) .' \ t; .1. “. .L‘u , '\ a L3J. t (It I e. a\._,, #1.. | .
‘ " L-I-
' . ~\ ‘- .' ‘ ; r- .n r - '\ , "( _ ‘ ‘Jr‘
.. .L.-. . ,,,,.., . ....., . ......W _ ’ _ _ . ... . ‘ L'. .'U_"
44.".- '."\-5.‘“ . 2:: 3 - '1‘. ‘ 1"“ t 0;: -'.|- J.‘ flu.) u..- . at. p . . .l a. .. \ .
. I 1’. .... Q... . . .. K‘ . .' ‘1' ’. 'I‘s '."‘— ‘ ‘
\ a -. '.e , ' \( v" ,. ( n. ”I. ' 1.,Il‘l . (1')!" ,_~~( a): I. 1“ . 4:1“ .0 \’ | L.
" I ..l‘ 1 't’ .~ ... - . .J\ 2 -1.) I. . ‘. VH‘. . - ‘- 1 I. - . ..
. . -
~ 1 - ‘t " .. . 0. 2. i .. . ,. ..
I a f o - . . I" _ I O - h,‘ ~ Q ~ I . ’-(- "'l. ...q I _ .. l ,3 . .
l I ‘ ‘ l \ . A . -' ‘ ‘ ' . . ,l . " . ‘ ' x ' \ " o .‘. ) ‘I‘en .' -., .
... ‘ '. -‘ I I-fz'c) ." I -It "a .J‘ ‘ ' ”ix-‘3 .... ' NW) 1""! \.) ...: .‘ - ' 9‘ 4‘ Q t . do - 4-
' ..
. -. u y. \ .' . " t "a ' _ “ . .¢‘\ " . . fi .
I... ’ ’ ‘ .l "I n I ' “ "‘."f O .T.,' l " (5“..' I‘ ("f .'I. .‘i .1 . 4-00.! ..p‘.
. ., _ .
‘ ‘ . ' ' V V . '. a 'nl" t.\
O - I l O - " “9| , ..." .. ". I r .' . , u .‘. . . . ‘ ‘ .
’ ‘ ' " "‘ . - ° ' " " " - ’ ~ - e . . J - _ .0 . » ‘ .
a '. .',‘.:._J‘- » , ‘ " "E. I] Iav}.‘-) ~,1. v ‘ I ~ ' . "I alk’ .. .p o 4' ‘ o e e
0 e - Va 4. ‘ c _ v'l , ‘ '. I . f. . ,\
l ‘v‘. ’ . ' ‘ "f , '._,a\l‘"."la ‘ I‘j‘ta .‘ 'I' ' ('3 r J ‘ .1 ()‘I . . _l‘, 1.. J-l.| L ‘4 h .-
"" 3 . -.. .‘ .- -.... {'a- A." . .. . ...z a 1.- Q
. t‘ e I. D ," .
‘ ' ' . . . t» . ' . m . e _ ev‘r. .- ‘r . . g’ -
’ ' w ’ ‘ ‘r‘ 1’ "Il . ' \ "I t . ., ‘tj. , '. J). ‘-
I. . . y . .~ ; t \ , v 1 ‘ . ‘ " ‘ -' . ... ’ “~‘J . ’
' 1"}..{43L5’r‘34 1‘ II. , ad ”.l.\)' ‘ . I ‘. ‘ k ’. k . '- .O... ' )a l."- J . \., J..\). . . e a ‘5 ~. .
l. ' t. 7
. . I . . r :c\ g e . ‘ . -‘ ’\ ’
" "1 ‘v . - ~ 0‘ -- W. 0 ..fl. ‘ .- .. I. - . .
' " ‘ ’“ . - D ' . | a‘ (3 , ‘. t . ..
-';.‘. .‘L‘ I ‘1 y I“) I," .‘_ .fJ::: ‘l LJ‘ ‘ f ‘ “ z \‘ l ‘.L'. ). t to J.\I\ ~' (y'au .... a i
' .. t
e'~
'- - ‘ ' ‘ . -. ..t. g. , ....i . 1 1,“
‘ ‘ “"‘ ’ ’ ' " " " W M‘ ‘I - .2. . - K. .C. .n, ..
q .'1 ,2 ‘Ja‘l' \ «J. -r..)‘. ' ‘1 ' 215.}, .l .‘j 'e ' . ' . {'.x lJ" 4 A I C u
. .‘ ‘ e
v e _ , X I
- . > . .‘ . ‘ "1
‘."‘ '°"“F' Fl" ~"'" ‘ “'1 - "7’1.“ '~."'. .21. '., "'9'. "‘41:. ...,r ,.
LisoL-‘ kn) . .. .«. . . .. . \ .... ., .. ,
. I .‘-‘ f .‘ ,l.. 0 ~ ,-‘, ‘f‘, ”i. I r "'I"; _
' .l' . 4’. v ' I"" . ’I ‘_ -.‘_ ‘1 ,_ . ‘. .1. .l I ‘,
{‘2 ‘ ‘13.}. ‘.Iye' ‘ t ’ ‘91., d3 - ’ . ~~' ' «wav ‘ ‘ \" '- l. - k. I v t
a " '~ It - ‘
. -.. ‘ ~, . ' fl‘ 3 '- up .' - r. I' I a ’. 1 a fl'o‘ x 1 ‘
. '33:) f"- .'.-'.' V J. 1.; ‘-‘.o. '4. ~‘.~!.a--'A-ee ' n‘u\" ’li.‘l e b

assume

in examination of Table 3a shows that the ratings of the "average

clinic patient“ by the five interpreters us very similar. There ap-
pears to be a fairly strong “patient“ stereotype which also extends
to the interpreter in the Deerborn Hospital.

Three major questions were investigated in this study. All of
then were evaluated once for each of the eight personality variables
in the HSRPP and also for the entire MSRPP scale.

uterpreters

The first question asked whether there were certain differences
in Rorschach interpretation which were attributable to the interpreter
rather than to the records presented to him. An examination of Table
21 shows that the interpreter variance was significant at or beyond
the .001 level of confidence for personality factors B, C, E, and J,
and also for the scale as a whole. The interpret‘er variance was sig-
nificant at the .01 level for personality factors D and G. However,
there was no significant interpreter variance for personality factors
A and F, (emotional under-restraint vs emotional over-restraint, and
neglectful carelessness vs responsible conscientionsness). Personality
factors J and B (sex conflict; and friendly trastfulness vs hostile
revellionsness) elicited the greatest amount of interpreter variance.

Thus the first question was answered in the affirmative for all
personality factors acept A and F. The fact that the interpreter
variance was very significant would seem to confirm the hypothesis.
However, there are several alternative explanations which met also

BTJUELSIfl

age-revs" edi '10 car-.1331 9:2? taxi? awode £8 9320'sz lo asidenhxsm m.
-q.o e'mdz-Z' .meitnfi: new one automate}. ovfc’i edJ‘ v.6 "Jaeld'sq oi‘nflo
aha-em cafe :ioidw eqxgios'xeia "J‘astd‘sq" gno'xd‘a {£157.31 :1 ad of amq
.Isd’iqaoI-I anodised ed: a}. Moment exit o:

“to LL’L ninja @1th n1 L-ed'sgtd'aevnt e'zm anotd‘aeup 'IOLM se'mT
asldshrzv ~gd'thrzoa'xoq Jzigis edd‘ '10 dose 101 ammo .59.?wa stew med-1

.eLwa emu saline 3.1.} 10‘! 03110 has qifim ed: a]:

amhwzatnm

neonate'fiih niches one»: aren’t nettiedw bolas actress}; Jenn sd’l‘
reformist an? oi nIdss‘udt'xJJ's snow :10th miisd's'xq'red'nt dnsdoznofi n1
oIdsT Io aoid’snlzmsxe «A . -’:d of :Jeineae'xq ab'xooe'x ed: 01 next? 'zmfis':
Move to 5'1! tmzot’imla saw sonata»? Icing-Isaak ad: Jed: swede 1:9
(C. has ‘31 .2: ‘2': e'mios‘i mJlLsnoa'xsq 1:01 eonebjz’lnoo ‘io fowl 1200. ad:
«31:3 as»: sotmiz'mv ‘xs‘i‘n'urxetmt ed'l‘ .sIon'w s 3;; shoe ed: 10‘; oaJls has
.mvst-ro'd .-';- has LI erodes“; vi'llsnoa-xoq ato't [oval £0. edJ’ J's inseam
310-3081: [JILEHOH‘IE‘IQ 10'); 90:15th seismic-mt insoflhtgla on new «at-mi;-
hm .J1ic-zd'a-r1-1evo lanai-tom 3v intermen— Ishtar Lemons-m) "E [me A
{Missoa'm‘i .{ :eeueuntd‘mfioanoo eIdianoqz-zm av ssenaaeie'xso Mics-£an
6321:3801! av -:asn.[Lfii-am ‘cibmt'x't fine womnoo xo=) 6 Tom B mercy;
mom-..Etuw 'reJe'xg-xo mi: ’10 franc-:13 noise-13 en: szaJtcLLs (easnauofllevc-‘I

I is 10‘} wh‘smhle ed: a]: harem-ms eew nofisenp Je'zi'i arm sun"!

.aiaads‘m'm' ed: Wines of mesa blue»: :msot'ilzngte mev asw eonsfi‘mv

\
1 . . .
reign-Esau: ndd' ted: 35ml emf .3 me A dqeoxa erodes} minim-mares;
‘ Gaff. 331M dotdw ancltcnsiqxe evfieme‘fln IB‘IQVS'. an and? new»)?!
\
\

13
be considered. First, these interpreter variances could have re-
sulted from differential sets for filling out rating scales. In
other words, the interpreter variance might reflect a sort of rating
scale behavior which had nothing to do with the Rorschach. To check
this possibility, each interpreter's rating of the average clinic
patient was compared with the ratings of the other four interpreters
and his deviation from their ratings noted. This gave an example of
interpreter variation in a non-Rorschach rating situation. There was
very little interpreter variation in the average patient rating. It
would be very difficult to explain the large interpreter variance in
the experiment in the face of minimal interpreter variation in the
average patient rating. Thus, it does not seem likely that the in-
terpreter variance is a function of general rating scale behavior.

Since different modes of interpretation are sanetines' emphasized
at different installations, a second alternative explanation night he
that the interpreter variance was a function of interpreters from
two different installations being used in the axperinent. However,
an examination of the results shows that in no case did the inter-
preter from the Dearborn Hospital have an extreme score.

It was also possible that the interpreter variance might have
been contributed by one deviant interpreter. Actually however, dif-
ferent interpreters were deviant on the various personality factors ,
and three of the five interpreters differed significantly from the
median interpreter on at least one personality factor. Thus it is
unlikely that the interpreter variance is a function of: (1) dif-
ferences in sets for rating scales; (2) different installations

where interpreters work, or (3) contributed by Just one interpreter.

 

El
-e'x awn-E 9559;: 3"‘J:'1“’:..E'L.'~.’ '5')J'!-"='.."_"'.'fi-."’£'i Henri: .3313; .5919: base ed
m: .euisea mite-i we 3.1311252.“ "0‘1 :'::'r-3':'- fez-511M fiz‘fib moat“? has-fine
-'-.n!.';fs'z 7.0 #102: .-. marl-an 1:123:31: 99111:th 'Ieterxq'xssmi as: ,a! 1-9:: 1911.10
$95.19 91‘ .sis.s:= =:.':3.-: 91.1%.. £013 0'; guiduf .n 213;: do tilt-1 zebran'ed 3159a
31:13:50 91:51.3}; 911' "m autism a'Isd’e'Iq'rem'c don: .15.‘5i£,i.‘£5.t:-‘.50q am:
:J‘KBJ'ED'I‘iCVIQ'Ht 199'} 1921173 91.? '.to .gntis': .-.-:E.z' 9:1"; bevsqxoo new Justice;
'10 algae-ore Ira: 9mg ui'rfT .bsi'm 5731113231 119d.) mo'x'i: 1:01:33: ref) 31:. ems
asw c'zed'i‘ .n‘u iii-93m . gist—1‘31 dosdoa'xofi-mn .s :11; notint'mv 2:1? rot-4:23:35:
.1'E 5.131121: TIL- L-sq nc-xe m exii’ n]: 1101131 usv ieieuqteu‘nt 933:1 \‘rsv
m‘: i:‘:.-te.t'x_sv '19.. 91919.31”... 93:31? 9111' mints 0+.1‘Lnok’nlb Yflsv eo’ biuow
«i.- m‘. muslin? ueu'sue'ri-Mt Isaiah: ‘10 9951 9113' ix.- wni'xscpm 9th"
.

~flt ed: Jedi .:L'e-.Lt§ urn-.5; iron 39013 :H: .9310: .flfttd‘fi'! iii-31:31:,- :333’13'93
e'ifiLVdJ’id since QFJ:J'£'I buxom->3 '10 notiomfi s at 99:15:13? 19307419:

beat 3qu '11? sen-1:. 331-32: '.vu n:~1;.‘s.1..2'tq'min£ “Jo asbom imaml‘flh smith
er? 3113,14: mfiamlgm a. 3'5: smei'in .‘uxooea a .anolisflsd'ent iners'i‘iib 41's
Lm'fl stair-gram: 'm nuts-“amt: :5 saw eonsi'mv rede'rq'teint ed: .131»?
fierce-«351 .1115me en'i a}. beam gnhu’ enoleILsJ‘cnt .1:t-3~r-32£’1‘!: on:
«em: mi: ME. we. on .ru‘. Jed: awoJe 331112-291 at” '10 molt-rinses me
.9109: ome'ri'xe as svsn' Lam-11.13071 rues-1.390 9:311 mo'fi 19.1mm

9v :1.’ .111, _.hi -9. L.-.=.‘.:.. 'xes. e'rq'zea‘iii 9m ran-'1‘ 9Edtaaoq calls as. :r :1
4125 Jawswod v££an§n.. «tetanus-mt naive?) one 2d bsiudt-xinoo mod
.aquos‘i trimmers; 'zuohsv 911: no inskvob B'Ifiw' 'z-veJ-a'xq'xoint More“:
)fld‘ m0'1'£"+"..:-.""1'-.n... DH'I:-'13.lb 31-3393 .I'l;'-.3"fi-I evil mn’d’ '10 sound: has
at 1’1: emf! Jojo-.1? ayti‘snoa'mq one is set 62-. no vertq'xed'nt as}; .291]!
~21}, J) :‘10 sol-fawn 3 a]: eomirsv teie'tq'i-ni'ni viii Jsdi {Ishlim
assimilate“). J's-3:91 11:3 (1') roofless gamer tic-‘1' ad‘s? ad: seen-91:3}

.vol'a-rqtsamfi mm mm, ‘23 taizdtudnac (3:) to ‘4'101: atsd‘a‘lq135'ttf storm

14

Another important finding in this experiment was that the sire
of the interpreter variance markedly varied from personality factor
to personality factor. is an usmple of the magitude of this vari—
ation, the interpreter variance is 5.93 in the analysis of variance
for personality factor F (Table 2f); whereas the interpreter vari-
ance in the analysis for personality variable J is 841597 (Table 2b)
The latter variance is 1!. times the size of the former, and the
difference is obviously significant. Let us explore the possible
meanings of this finding. The significant interpreter variance re-
ported previously indicated that there were differences in Rorschach
interpretation which were attributable to the interpreter rather
than to the records presented to him. The great variation in in-

terpreter variance from one W-variable to another suggests
that the extraneous factor which was introduced may well be related
to the W of the interpreter.

An alternative explanation for the extrane variation of the
interpreter variance for different personality-variables might be
that the Rorschach was inadequate for measuring some personality
variables. However, if this were the case one wouldaza’c-pect an in-
flated interpreter variance. The interpreter variance should be
unaffected if the Rorschach were inadequate, since there seems to
be no reason for interpreters to react differentially in that situ-
ation. A complication in this line of reasoning is occasioned by
the fact that the different peracnality factors are composed of
different numbers of items. It is possible that the marked differ-

ences in interpreter variance among the personality factors night

err-1 9.1? tied." "..-3‘.-' ..‘u'fL'1’;.-’2'.‘3‘-.T_I.~= side" (11; 3:15;. out“ :".:.-.3.?~J.n:i.'-.Li: 't-sxicl‘oza';
'xofccl ;:.‘:‘...'_s:=-."r-.=:..-.=.§ 519-1". fir-1.2m! fifteen-Lem must-n": ‘!.:-.~-.",-'I'[‘Io:fij: 3:11 '10
«far-v abs"! '19 313.1: .’:-.-. 3...: '-.'i.?' "a", afqmsxe .151 at. .29: “29.3 :-.‘...=.".sttoa'terr oi-
339civnv to cinch-1': 9:13 11!: {'53-} =23: 94513112“! 211413.111 «I? moi-ts
-l:-uev 19.1'o-xqtmfm’; 9. ..f macro 5»: , =1 R 3133"?) '1 101933: '=cJ'i.FJ3n-:>a'1~::g not
(r13 eidm‘) v9.3“: a’: 'i. nid.a’:=r.'.s'.' "Hibernate-'2 'xo‘l stratum. 9:13 at same
suit fans mama? -\ 1.! lo {-3 is edd'a eat: .‘JZ at 99931129: 'IBJ‘J’fl: stfl'
9.. 939:: odd erotqzce an 391 .nwoi‘lhmfa flauoivco at sons‘xel'itb
-e': 99-1353st remnant-x: insoflhmfa 3rI'I' .antbnt“: did: '19 mitoses!
noazioa'zofi rd: asam-re‘i'iib 9123.; atom Jeri? 5.2.3339me ‘(Iaucive'rrg bemq
191331 -.:-.s:!'=3-rq':.-.'-J'n3. on: o.‘ elded'udt'xirs 53'sz dorm: .:o£-'?aJe-:rrx-3Jnl
«xix-1' retire-.2137 fear}; '3sz .1311 OJ’ bummer: simmer art? 0;! mad:
33-39mm Isis-3.“ or Maggi-piano o 9m '.‘TD't'i eons tux? lug-re:
hernia-3': ed £1924 um E-Josbo'mni saw no.9; 'Icioc‘i ems-1.3.132.) erfi)‘ .1ch
#:9151211an 9513: '.Lo 3;;ng ad: or

911.? to no.7:..‘.;.-':-Lev myth-93 ed: '10"; nofiansiqco 91'1J‘1fl'I33I-l as
ov.’ rant-.1ceidstrav-witmomeq tae'xe‘ni-b 1'19 enmity»: T'!J:'~"I'.i1 Jill

'{Jibmoaveq 9219:: animus: 'xcl -'3e‘.'wosbsn.t ash: Herdsman 3113' todd-

--n- i:

42!: 113 d'ozm‘nnbmow mm 9.939 .99." 3-13.: 3.21% ‘11 awe-rod .rm fo‘slv:.v
ed bib-rods somlvnv assent-ad's: ed? .99.:th ':9§9'qu*:9£.‘1.". hasten

OJ arose 9211-2399918 .eisupehmt err-'4 dcsrloa'nf. ed: it {1395131323
«4m Jeni? at licki'uo'xo'ilizb Jason 0.? a'xed'e'xq'mrl'ui 'xo‘l noses-x on 39
{d bsnotasoco 3.1.: artifice-.591 lo anti aid: at hetero-5.5.3.3109 :1. .110th
‘.to beecqmoc en anoint-.1 'cd'tLamn'm-q :a‘mwa'fli'n mi: Jeri.) 392.1 3315.1'
~913th bellman or” (91TH eirflasoq a: it ..:.'u. it in sandman: inere’flib

Mats: erodes? 23mm 91::1 en's anon: eta-mimev ted’e-xq'msat 11.3: 999-33

15
be a function of the different numbers of items in the various per-
sonality factors. However, when personality factors cmpesed of
the same number of item are compared, the differences are still
extremely large. For example, personality factors F, D, and J
each include four itans, yet the interpreter variance for J is 11.
times the size of that for F. We, factors A, c and o eeeh
have sham and the interpreter variance for C is more than
six tines the size of that for A. Thus the variation in inter-
preter variance for the different personality factors , does not
seem to be explained on the basis of the number of items per per-
sonslit'y factor. Apparently, the interpreter variance represents
error of interpretation which is a function of the personality or

the interpreter.

Degree of Infomtion.

The second question asked whether inn-easing the amount of in-
formation available in Rorschach records affected the interpretation.
in examination of Table 21 shows that the conditions variance was
not significant for any of the personality-factors, nor for the
scale as a whole. The different conditions of information thus had
no dwonstrable effect upon Rorschach interpretation. Therefore it
was not necessary to carry out an investigation of the more specific
effects of various conditions such as : verbalisation, psychocam,
core-concepts and protocols. The results do show that the amount
of information has no measurable effect upon interpretation. This
suggests that there is a great deal of redundancy in the Rorschach
test, since interpreters can make essentially similar interpretations

u ,

~19q 31:51'm'..' :wI-t n-L 3.13.”; “lo madman: J's-319313 ‘zb exit“ --'3 solders/2 r. 3:3
'10 buy-30:12:03 erodes: 32620-129319} (reds (seven H .L'Intoe‘i gums
fit:- a earn as ezte'xe‘tliz .'- or}: ,1) a'mqmoo e'za arr-=31; “lo '.tec'nnm 331'; ads“

-. I‘m 0. J 3 sins”. viti‘sn .oaraq 393‘:anme '.co‘l .933“le gamma

LE 31 I. to'i 902:3]?st redo-hymen: ndd' 30v, .smefl “wot: shah)“: dos-e
none -'3 one C ..L nae-foal .'-;E°m£br-.t€. .“F. 113') end: “to eats. suit semi:

'LmS H

nod: eaten a: 0 '19'1 oomi'mv so-to-xq'xeml add has .semfl,x.t:z ovsd
«zee‘m‘: n3". not-inrutv ed: "mlT .31 not .fsdd' '19 o: 3‘23 ed: seal! x}:
J'oa eeob . John's. Vii-Isms 'req tnotc'k'itb on”: 10‘: 903:3}:st 1:33qu
exec; seq amen lo 'xedr-mc: add: '10 alasd eds; no {teammate ed 03 mass
8-ffi"89'1'13‘x 3:31:33; 31w meiotqu. ~19an 33m .zIa‘ns'zeqqii .too‘ea‘l '{Jflsaoa
lo \g-i'flsnonoq ed: to [seldom s of debt: activism-Leda]: '10 zone

.nderq'setmt ed:

.noh’hsm'xolnl lo eorgsfl

-2-t ‘10 inseam ed: on). some: 'mxfindw baits mite on? basses edT
.nomsie'xq'xe-tm‘. edi hole: 3'13 8510961 dosdoe'tofl r13: efdsflzsvs solemn-cl
new ocusbmv sasfzttbmo 3:0 33:13 swede £9 e1 '2 ‘10 mltsntmmce wt
9.1.? 1:01 10:: .a'xcdasln'ca‘fisnoa'mq odd' '20 was 103 Jmolttmgta :tou
bed amt? sonny-343M ‘lo enohflimoo 3319191232!) edT .oIodv s an since
it o‘xo'le’md’l‘ .azoltsds'xqtmmt dominate}? soqu Joelle .3Idst;.'snomb on
ct’itoeqa exam 9d: 10 garnishment as due 'mo 03’ monsoon 30a sew
,zrm-xaodozsc; “Ichtsstl’nd'xev :as dour. snotflbneo scone? lo atoe‘no
J'mrcms ed! 3mm m...’3 an address: 311‘]? .aioooto'ra Ms ad’qemzoo-e'zce
5-th .uoztlrsie'xq'xed‘nt anus: Joel: 3 swarms-m on and act-1:35: ”halal lo
:inefimofi' add at taught-:nu'm': ‘io Lash 5.3912 :3 33'; uteri-1' JsdJ’ 3389:3353»:

chowder-min]: ”that: UJHB’IJ‘SJ st- 3>Lsn mo ’51:)3’6’1Q'IB-311i: acute “teed-

 

l6
whether they have the whole record, or only core concepts- or sun-
mwe '

Subjects .

The third question asked whether the Rorschachs of different
patients were interpreted differently. In minatioe of Table 24.
shows that the subject variance was sipi-ficant at the .91 level of
confidence for the scale as a whole, and also for personality factor
F (neglectful ecu-elecsness vs. responsible conscientiensnese.) . The
subject variance was significant at the .05 level for persaslity
factors A, B, c and 1). There was no significant subject variance
for personality factors E, G, and J (respectively: motivation for
long term goals 3 obsessive phobic resction; end can conflict.)

Thus , the subject variance was gemrelly significant, indicat-
ing that the Rorschsoh oen sctuelly differentiate be‘tueen different
subjects, he” different ratings given to the different sob: sets.

Although it has been duonstrated that the Rorschach can differ-
entiate between the different subjects , this does not necessarily
mean that there is precise differentiation. For annuals, if two
of the 15 subjects had had very high scores on a personality factor
and two hsd very low scores, with the others more or less bunched
together, there might well be a significant subject variance. Bov-
sver, only four of the subjects would actually be discriminated;
there would be no differentiation among the other eleven. we might
then call this a coarse differentiation, whereas a technique which
differentiated nearly all of the subjects from one another would

 

--.":U?. 3.0 :-‘.d'q=‘n:‘:. was 212:3: '71: ,‘ 3 -3-.- 3.3.3.113! 9.11? .avsu' {wit 'z-)3'IJ'-Ji'.'w

..:-).E:'-n.”!

. aJ'o- . fife-.3

Home? LE “2:0 33’:.33'a..{e:;'.2cr." 3.4.3- torfdrov'w bod-w notr'z'airp 3:15:11? 9.1T
3:3 side! ‘10 tan-’23.u..‘.-3ua;:e w’i .‘ch-ro'ml'i.';’.3 Ens-formant o'xeu a-tn'it'hzq
‘12.: .Cevsi J20. 9.22;:- 33-37..1330&":i;r33';3 new aomsL'mv doe idea ed: #311: swede
token-'1 'giiLnnm'toq 10': 09.117. has .9101»! a on since on? 10': eone'nt'tnos
odT (.aaenazmmaeis moo eidlanoqa-a'x .37 names-elem: 33130912391!) ‘3
'{J'cianoa'ieq 10‘: level: 30. 933': do :rnzot'lmia asw oorcsimv joetduc
semi-13v $3.9th: diatri‘ifcngia on 22.3w 913:2 ’ .5. has 1;- .a ,A modes}
12-2". (If Stir/tier;- :vj: 3'.7Z':"-‘)€9~..'C 31) '3. has .2) ,3. ancient {immune-q '.IO'I
(dullness rcoo Ema moie‘oee‘z shrew} ovlaeeado when; 1219: grief.

-.tsoibtd; ,d'xiaol'lm'gia =5LL3'reneg new 9031311.“ doetdna exit .aun'i‘
monolith neewd'ud 9J333Eir23—2'1I'3'1'1ib '{LLeuJ-m mes dasdoa'I-JH on? we 3n}.
.aJ-aeidua due-rel? in? 23.11 0:! 319th intro-1 a‘m'ne'ntb “3,; .atoetdua

#:3932325 mo Liam-{931039 ed: J's-g2} heist-ferment: need and it (Quanta
'{Lz'rxsaaeoen d'orx .3995 amt ,cdoeidira er'mnlb on” seemed 312.2333».
owd' '31 ,slqn'nxo '10"! .mlcfsl.fac-m‘1‘lif'3 eaioe'xq a]: and: +ch noon.
nodes-l \cJILsuoa'zaq o no 431692 31351:! wrav bed bed atoeLduc if}: 33'? "to
bedemtd seal. '1:- 2mm memo 21113? with: .891008 'rol’. crew had cud" 3:33.23
am}: .eonshev Joetdm: Machinists .3 90' [law M311: axed-3‘ memo-.30?
ghsisum-xoetb ed allusion bLuot-v afloetrhre exit '10 wet {Inc now
.tiigba ew' .xsoveie 'xedJo '33” won: notiotdnorefitb on ed b.0302: 919322?
deitiw euplmioed s see-rods ,noE-tsimrie'ffib 931.300 5 am: fine 3:33:13

£10.10" nadd one are .2910. arm-3 ten-:- 3d: '10 {La {Inst-u tedstfimre‘l‘zib

17
have fine differentiation. Examination of the present data suggests
that in the analyses where the subjects were discriminated, there

was a coarse rather than a fine differentiation.

Other Findings

The analysis of variance technique used in this experiment per-
mitted the evaluation of several other actress of variance besides
those which were pertinent to the three major hypotheses outlined
above. These were a Latin Square variance, and two interactions,
Interpreters by Latin Square , and Conditions by Latin Square. The
Latin square variance was significant at the .05 level of' confidence
for personality factors D, E and G. (Table 21) It was not sig-
nificant for the other 5 personality-factors, nor for the scale as
a whole. Each Latin Square was composed of a different group of
five Rorschachs so that a signficant Latin-Square variance probably
reflects differences between the three m of Rorschaehs. Since
the Iatin-Square variance was significant for personality-factors D,
E and G, one may concltde that the three groups of Rorschacha dif-
fered in respect to: Sense of personal adequacy, motivation for
long-term goals, and obsessive-phobic reaction.

The Interpreter by Latin-Square variance is a measure of the
interaction between interpreters and the different groups of sub-
jects. A significant Interpreter by Latin Square variance would
indicate a differential reaction by the interpreters to the three
groups of Rorschachs, 1.6. , the different interpreters would vary
in their reaction to the gonpe of Rorschachs. The Interpreter by

VJ.
eieoagua emf.) Janeen; add ’20 nofifierthxi .riot.*.'.-.:£ém'ml‘tilo sail svsd
35‘."de ,Fnd‘snfimi'xosfz: s-xezt :zé’eehoue on? stem! members- MD at use

..=.tof:.+ethar.'ze't'iif, Jail 3 nand' radian cameo n ssw

agntmt’i 'zedd‘o

-.‘eq Jasmin-agate aid: 11.? been supine-as: sonelrsv '10 nations erfl'
asbteed 2302:3th lo eeo'woa radio Lerovoe lo mtJWIsve ed: befits:
bonlIJu-o aeaerfiocmi totes: sew odd" 03' healing new :19an seed:
.enntd'os-xemr'. out: has ,ecmt-st amp; «133.1 a snow 9:39sz .svode
urn" .e'xewx’. fizzle}. a}: anoijibmr} has .empa anal Id sneterq'xed'nI
eombfiuoo lo Izavsu'. 60. ed: J‘s Jusofilmgln sew eonst‘nsv 91.6an anal
-313 soc: sew J‘I (£3 eide'l‘) .a has 3 ,6 31039.31 '{J‘LLsms'xeq rot
an shoe 3th no": men ,sroios‘i—zd’tienosrsq 2 traffic ed: rel tannin
“to (more Monolith e ‘10 beaoqmoo sew empa 11in :1er .eiodw s
udsdorq ooxteit'xsv omega-4111M Jasol’ilzmjts 3 Jedi oz sdoadoa'xofi evil
some .adosdoa'mfl to am send: odd- aeewo‘sd soonere'nlb asserts-x
.u croJofl-mitiemsneq '.to'l smotltrgm new eoxmbmv sample-anal edd-
-'i.tb aziosdoa'xoii to equate; sent)“ 9d.) Jedi encloses no: em ,5) has 3
10’: Indication .xzoeupem Lancersq to sense to: Joeqse': at beret
motions: otdodq-svtsaeado has ,eLeog med-31ml

ode“ "lo extreme: a a}; oomsi'wsv anemia-111331 Id uremia]: 3d?
«1m 10 squat; du-sue‘i'itb ed: Em sneie'zqeemt seemed mtJoenstnt
bisow coast-w: enwpa anal we mtetq'mo‘ni inanimate A .sieet,
sew} ed: a: a-xei'e-rq-mdnt exit 14:: mitten” Inteim'xe'iub s adenine]:
vuv mow arede'xq'mml inerel'fizb ed: "9.: ,adosfioarofi to squats

2.: ”semester. stfl‘ .Mormoe'mll ‘.io aqua-m r-urf.‘ od' mines-x 12315: at

18

latin Square Variance was significant at the .05 lCVel for person-
ality factor V and for the whole scale, and was significant for no
other personality-factors. (Table 21). This would suggest that
there was a strong interaction effect for personality-factor B
(friendh trustmlness vs. hostile rebelliousness) , so strong that
it influenced the ratings for the whole scale, even though it ap-
peared in no other personality factor.

The Conditions by Latin-Square Variance is a measure of the
interaction betwoen the conditions (different degrees of information)
and the three groups of Rorschachs. A significant Conditions by
Latin Square Variance would suggest that the conditions had dif-
ferent effects upon interpretation in the three groups of Rorschachs .
The Conditions by Latin-Square Variance was significant for
personaliw-factors C (relaxed comfort vs. amnious tension) and D
(sense of personal adequacy.) (Table 21)

Results of the “Applicability to Rorschach Interpretation" rating
The results of the rating, by the interpreters, of the appli-
cability to Rorschach interpretation of it“ in the MSRPP person-
ality factors may be fomd in Table 1.. Personality factors F and
A were rated most applicable. It is interesting to note that the
same personality factors’i and F, were the only ones which did not
elicit significant interpreter variance in the experiment. However,
this relationship does not hold for the personality-factors which
elicited the largest amount of interpreter variance. It seems that
the interpreters regard the personality factors which elicit the

9r

4:03:93. 'm'l Lava}? 55"". odd" J'r: m mitigate. new aorml'wy erase; one:
or: 10': '.‘ttsol‘ii'uei-t new inn. ._-e.[soB eIodw «Hit 10': ms ~33 'xoios'i tzc'rizin
3:er reagents Myst-i sir-"E . {1:3 eids‘i'} .aroioe‘l—zdilsnoauaq radio
8 wxogz'i—xliisncutuq "JC'I Joelle mfcioarodni- snot-3's: 33v tyrant
ind: gnon'ra ca .{3-aeaauo.t1_:f=.r.-'er .sfld'aod .sv sassbfiiannt vibes it?)
«In H. dguoaid- nova ,sisou salt-xiv ed: raft spatter ed: beenoofiat JJ:
.moios‘: td'lLsnou'xeq radio on mt beueq

are E: firemen" :3 a}; cousin? scrape-nun! "(d 3:30:31:th edT
5. narrator‘s: 'io maggot: :h-ca're'z'lib) smlitfmo odd- mewo‘ed momenta:
*{d Gnotlt'jfli); heartbeats. A .edoaxioa'xoiz lo aurora; sent: so? has
«lib had are-Lribnoo exit Jed: Joeagrm Meow canons? amps? (11:43.1
adenine-Ion Tao squat; some out} at notieJotqrsd'mt noqn aros'ne Smuel
to? lemming-is new census-J omp‘d—nls‘sl *zd snolflbaou on?
(I has {no/lanai worms .=':v .mmmo hauler) L) anoiml-wmnoz-teq

(.12 side?) («coupons Isnos'xeq lo oases)

units: "notdsi'e'zq-reml' .iosdoa'xcfi at zilltdsoiqulk" 9ft)" lo admoeh
«flags on}: '10 ,e'Lscts'tq'xesni: 9:13 to (guitar exit ‘10 ad’flme'x adT
mooreq 'fif'fl-i em- mt awe-33: 'm mansion-(1133M xiouioatofl of {criticise
has 'i erodes”: \fJ'IIBfIOC'is‘i .A sIdeT rd: btwo'i ed m arol‘os‘i "3M3
exit Jedi tut-on o-l' antlers-saint at H .oiIr-‘soflqqs ear-m Eater was; :1
ion bib Home some ‘ztno exit are»: “I has A 31039.0“: ‘(Jllsnoa'xeq omen
.‘ISVSVOH ..‘meml'quo «39:: rd: eosntmev salesmen: inanimate static
Holds: omissl—Wlisnoa'zeq out: to? Mod Jon soon qtdamlrsls'x std:
Jed: areas #1 “tom-.312“ «swam-mm: '.to demons $333-st mi: bed-tetra

exit flotio damn mod-rel Wit-emanate or}: b13351 c'ono'tq'rsml 3:33

19

least interpreter error as most applicable, but they do not neces-

sarily view personality factors which elicit maximal error as least

applicable.

rams 2a

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PERSONALITY FAC‘I‘QI A

(MORAL DEER-HEW VS. ‘EIIOTIOEAL

 

 

 

oven-REM)

manor DsossESOFBWOIL ‘. ,.

vmmm A man some vmmgs 1 1'

Conditions 1. 25.0 6.25 x

Interpreters 1. 40.7 10.17 1.13
‘ Subjects 12 229.0 19.08 2.11 *

Latin Squares 2 52.5 26.25 2.90

Conditions by

Latin Squares ‘ 8 121.1 15.13 1.67

Interpreters by

Latin Squares 8 73.2 9.15 1.01

Residual 36 325.6 9.04

Total 71. 867.1

 

* 3 Significant at .05 level of confidence

I a Variance smaller than error tern.

RE
..caom ion 0?) zed-1' inc! .efdmjziqqs Jaom 03 tons 'er'e-xqtcxmt 33.3.9.1:

Jami -..'3 '2‘."I'I-.J '.me-zu.‘ 53:91:19 rial-9'7 amt-395.2 15:1- ti'i'rsoatog wear: 15.12.9233

 

 

 

.eidsoflqqa
:33 (HEAT
.5. flO’I'OA’i 'I‘E‘IJAKOBEIFH 110i SHOWIHAV :10 (Jamil/IA
JAE-‘.Gsli‘orfl .EV ‘I'iviEAflTéEfi-HEKBEU .IAHOITOifi)

{'fliDLflTBJfl—HENO
'33 MUS '10 233.000 "IO 3031103
'-I amumv 375mm 4W1 3071315117
3 33-5 0&3 4'1 anotflbaoc
EI..[ $32.01: 'i‘. J}. .1 amiorq-ied‘aI
* LBS 3.0.0! 0.63-3.31 SJ: metdua
09.3 23.63 6.32 ’2 =39wa tine:
«Cd amonthmo
$0.12 5:12.61: L131 8 aempa and
35d autozq‘mtni
‘ 1.0.0 0.35:: ea Leubtaofl
‘ {5'68 A? L330?

 

sombflmo lo level: 20. 3t» wearing}; - *

..med' 10-1709 mam? 171713113 worcehs‘.’ . i‘

20

1181321)

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ms msoum-ncron B
(17111er musrmmrss vs. 803nm

 

WOUSNESS)
W
sermon on SUM or 7 DEGREESOF VARIANCE I r" "
names seams mm - . A
Conditions 21.7 4 5.42 x
Interpreters 339.7 A 84.99 10.6£***
Subjects 205.7 12 17.14 245*
Latin Squares 28.9 2 14.45 1.81
flm‘mfizfi 70.6 8 8.83 1.11
Interpreters by
Latin Squares 155.8 8 19.48 2.44
Residual 287.2 36 7.98
Total 1,109.6 74

 

* Significant at .05 level of confidence
'**’Signifieant at .00l level of confidence
x.-VVarience smaller than error tenm

(59 51.1813. 1‘

E fl)j.‘01"-.'E-1"" "Ru-JELII 3.03 50111133.? it TIBET-LAWS:

'\ EBC'IZBUOW

$21313}? .L-‘J L;BGIEIU‘"I"1'€:U5PL' 351m! an.)

 

'i .2073.th

X 9A.E
fling!) a 0-: E? e {\3
*E‘I. -2 M. VI

£8.£. 8$.AI

125.1. $8.8

LA.S 8$.9£
59.?

5:0 cm «:0
mm 1'

.‘s
A
EU:

6:

#9

'IO MU?"-
31511-338

'I'Jl
T.€£E
“£01

9.8.9

5.0?

8.EE.£

'S.\‘8$

6.901;}.

30 EOEUGE
JDEIIAL‘LW

amidiimoi)
axatezqteial
3309 f, duh;
aetsnpe fitted

{d feminine;
3911:1193 and

ad axniethetul
comma atrial

Leaf. f 39?.

Led’o'i‘

 

901105112100 "re Level a0. is J‘mot‘ttrata; *

””bfifm” '10 I-mf. I00. J's accentuate: me

me: torts and: 'ieLL-nza 31:93me - X

TABLE 20

“ISIS OF VARIANCE FOR WWI-FACTOR G
(RELAXED COMFORT VS. ANIIOUS TENSIOH) '

21

 

 

 

SOURCE OF SUM 01" DEGREES. OF

VARIANG SQUARES . W VARIM F
Conditions 55.1; ‘ l. 13.85 2.04
Interpreters - 261.0 1. 65.25 9.61%
Subjects .5 179.1. 12 14.95 2.204‘ .
Latin Squares 1.3.4 2 21.70 3.20
Conditions by ’
Interpreters by

Latin Squares 105.6 8 13.20 1.91.
Residual 21.4.6 36 6.79

Total 1,016.0 7/.

 

* Sigificant at .05 Level of Confidence
*** Significant at .001 Level of Confidence

OS JEMT

0 ao-m.;-.z.-.:v'.'2muoum 5m EDMUAV '10 aIsmm.
(scram 300mm .av morn-:00 0.17m)

 

 

 

"IO 23359210 ‘30 HUB 10 EDMOE

“7'1 30:125.th 11)de BEAM SDVJHIAV
*’*""£5 .9 35:. 'dd .1 0 . .1103 Me Toms mi
#08. . emu SI +new: 3808mm:
09.? 0?.13 S A. ‘21 3918.098 111138.!
\;d 8110!:le

*EE. s. 58. CI 8 {3.51112 camp? (1118.1
‘cd Baden-rem):

A? . I. 0'3. 5!. 8 0. 3.0}: camp's. 111::nt
9\‘.0 at 6.113 Lwhteefi

A? 0.610.): wow

 

s-csmbnaoo 10 Level «30. 3.0 31:51:11th *

e“ n u

.?:,.:n..1..‘ J- .. 1..

oombfirtoi) '10 Lew-I £00. J's .

- _..,

TABLE 2d

ANALYSIS or VARIANCE FOR Pmsoumn-Fierea 0
(men or ransom 1030010!)

22

 

SOURCE OF SUM OF DEGREES 0P ' '

EERIANGI SQUIRES IREEDGM. VIRIANGB .1
conditions 24.8 4 h 5312 1059 _
Interpreters 87.2 A. 21.80 3.67**
Subjects 94.0 12 ' 7.83 2.'01.'*'
Latin Squares 32.7 2 16.35 4.25*
Conditions‘hy

Latin.8qneres 76.7 8 9.59 2.50‘
Interpreters by

latin Squares 15.6 8 1.95 I
Total 71.

 

* Significant at .05 Level of Confidence
** Sipifioant at .01 Level of Confidence
I g Variance smaller than error term

l

-\ r77. .-
I)“. Jul‘Lf

(i 23’.

3.

,.!.".--IEIIIIE{OL}1TI .‘D’tl #:0515143" 7.10 613311113.
(IDAUQJU. ..ii'rvifi'lfli‘i '1') 3.13933; )

 

'11) 8333030 ’10 HUB. "IO 30111108
‘I 301L113?! mania? 83.35533 210711.111!

QE.I S£.5 A 8.13 sneitlbnea
“*V0.E Ofl.£? A $.V8 atntoeqeeenI
*AC.9 58.? £1 C.A€ Bioetdnfl
*3£.A 65.0? S ?.SE aetsupfl nits:

~35 “sumo
‘06.: 9a.? 8 9.0? ectnupL aided

{fl azaéeuqneinl
X 39.1 8 0.E£ Bexsupa axial

AB.E 0E $.861 LnubIeefi

A? .03 TOT

 

canfibfi'moé} '10 .12st 7&0. 3'5 describinkfi *
eonebllnofl to Level 10. in dasotlinata **
mas: 10119 new: reilnea eonnizev 3 a

22

T131320

ANALISIs 0F VARIANCE FOR PERSONALITY-FACTOR E
(no-IIVAIICN F0R Iona-TERM eons)

W

 

SOURCE OF SUM OF DEGREE OF

VARIANCE SQUARES m 11mm F
Conditions 20.0 I. 5.00 I
will Squares 51e9 2 25695 3am
Conditions by

Latin Squares 62.3 8 7.78 1.10
Interpreters by , ‘
hm mmea 67e4 8 8e” 1e19
Residual 254.2 36 7.06

 

* Significant at .05 Level of Confidence
8* Simificant at .001 Level of Confidence
X g Variance smaller than error tom

9'9. IHEUJE

:‘J'.i‘0;i.'i—XT£LI£..'¥EOGfiC~"I 1.3;:- '.IL‘YDRIHAV so exam-.7...
(43.209 Jazz's—0210.1 w: za-nrmvn'om)

 

 

=1 "II: 2m; 310 33.5102;

"1 ‘.‘0.":-..‘Z:..’.V Eaiiiab'yc gamma

X 00.3 .5. 0.052 2:101:31:me

5” 50$. 3 '.LE .93 J.» -” . T‘F. SI :med‘s'xqtsd’ni
{$.53 4;; 9.3 3.139 {.6113

”86.5 33?.3‘: S 9.12 aam'upé‘. utter!
‘cd snot-limos

01.1 -‘.-'-"C‘.‘.‘ B S .26 remap; 1:33:23;
rd amde'xq'md'ni

'15": E348 3 +"- N ‘ 5:022:19. clef-3.1
£70.? (BE RAE; Lwfitnefl

M‘ C- .Q&V Dru-T

 

annbnn-vi‘ ‘10 {mad «:0. .118 $113931};qu *
somebflnoi' Eco Laval 110“. is insulin-:1; W

arm-1' term and: :eLsza 90(28in :1 X

TABLE 2f

ARILXSIS OF‘VARIANCE FOR PERSGIALITISFICTOR F
(NEGLEGTFUL GAREBESSNESS VS. RESPQNSIBDB ..

 

 

 

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS)
$008.03 or ' sun or DEGREES or u
VARIANCE sources mm VARIANCE 1'
Conditions 21.2 4 $30
Interpreters 23.7 1. 5.93 1.57
Subjects 136.7 12 11.39 3.01“
Latin Squares 10.6 2 5.30
Conditions by
Latin.squeres 50.9 8 6.36 1.68
Interpreters * by
Latin Squares 18.1. 8 2.30 x
Residual 136.4 36 3.78
3.3.1 71.

 

** Significant at the .01 Level of Confidence
X g‘Varience smaller than error term

t»
.‘I

'11:: 12.7.5191}:
"'1'. .‘TQ'Sw fie-'1'.“ 211033;”: 5.9711 30.3"." :51? T.) LICYJAHA
-fl<'ili'-'.‘1U‘{2'.Iai .aV £18113in $131.0 J’Jlfiamixm)
( darn-1.2 UdI‘i‘vkiIOtil'EOC

“’._—u, —~—-- .

 

‘30 3..:'L-.'I."ix’3‘§:_7 30 Mb}: '{0 30511102.
'I TEFL". IR]?! DEUCE-E3151"! 523%“th EUMIXAV

0‘; . E 3‘. '7. . I? amliihnoli

‘I‘é .L $53.? ,-\. Vail? a'teJ'e'xq'xe in}:
“131.5; 96.1]: “if. “9.3-? I. ates $63“.
03.2? s: cams: ae'mnpa awed

. ‘ci mainland!
BIZ-.12 .53.?! 8 €.C:(: sewn”: 51351

vi atetewq'xemI
I; 9%.? 3 32.312 3031152 alts-I

8?. 't'. 6?. s . :‘2- .. 13011139.“!

A? Ind'o'."

 

ens-zebrmns '10 Jewel .120. End! In .fneoi‘liugla W

1.29;? tom and: 'LeLLama 9911-1th - 2-1

1'13ng

mmsxs or VARIANCE FOR PERSONALITY-FACTOR G
(moan 331011011)

 

 

 

SOURCE or sun or seems or

VIRIANCE SQUKRES Inunnxla 71811508 P
Conditidns ' 28.5 I. 7.12 1.01.
Latin Squares 54.9 2 22?‘5 4.01*
Conditione'hy ~
Latin Squares 110.3 8 13.78 2.01
Interpreters hy

Latin Squares 70.1 8 8.76 1.28
Residual 246.4 36 6.84

Tom 769e 7 716

* Significant at the .05 Level of Confidence
** Significant at the .001 Level of Confidence

38 3.13}; if
'3 fig;- '313:'='3£-3-T'I'il-.'.Z-I'. fir’i'. 13% 51'3".-'-.I;4.4V ’10 EIEZZuA'VJ.

HOITUIILE I IEE'DE‘I-' .V' {.ICIifl-D)

‘4

 

. -awm- -- ...-..- e--- .a—~
. . ...- ‘.a .—

'10 8.3011331! ‘'10 RUE ‘13 335-2503
1 LiSiBii'inX‘J I-Difi’ilfi"! Wit! ‘8 .‘mfihL‘L’t‘.’

.‘O .1' M.? .‘x E .82 sac-12‘ Ethos!)
»u*Ia.a 76.85 s v.0&£ aue¢e2010¢n1

2E.£ so.“ 91 1.90: aJoeLdue

*5)..." 33.39"- ‘3'1 13.172 3'9‘2‘f:p'.; 111‘.me
“gd enotd'tme
110.9 E‘I‘cLI 8 6.01:1: en'n'.:.-':>'-. Al’J’BJ

150' a'stMC'xed'nI

89.! 813‘!- ae-zwpt' 9.11111

0:
1.,
O

O
'1

N". 1‘ (3-2 3.6.3.3 Lem-tam!

ex? ‘3 .96? L330?

 

093953511100 ‘10 Laval :30. 5:1? is J'1'.'IO.7."11'II~‘:,.':51 5‘

aanebf‘lrroa ‘.Eo 125%.]. £00; exit J's d‘molltml’c‘. "’4

 

26

 

 

 

TABLE 211
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FUR PERSONALITY-FACTOR J
(SEI-CONFIJCT)

SOURCE OF SUMS OF DEGREES 0F
VARIANCE SQUARES men VARIANCE 1'
Conditions 11.9 I. 2.98
Interpreters 337.1 4 84.97 21.12.”
Subjects 55.6 12 4.63 1.16
Latin Squares 17.3 2 8.65 2.16
Conditions by
Latin Squares 30.1 8 3.76
Interpreters by
Latin Squares 38.1 8 4.76 1.19
Total 71.

 

W Significant at the .001 Level of Confidence

INT.

T. across-Ir5.1-.noanzq £01 :10.
{ mmmcuma)

hive-l 2 AV r’IO 3 IaY-LK... 1“

 

 

 

"if? Bdflffmli 510 Fi'TJE'. '10 :TJI'XUOS

"I 3351;115:113 VEOC‘EFHEX ~'£1'JIAL-k3 immmv

3?. \ A 9.51 8110131111101)

*“*3£.1'$ * . .33 J: 1.??? axe-:e'xq'rsa‘ai
3.1.1. {0.1 :2 0.3.: seesaw;
01.9 20.8 2 am: aeuspa sun

91.. I

A?

w amid”: 51100
LUE RSWpE 1113s.:

‘cd awe-remain]:
.391 sausage awed:

P-I

6.5.11 .[suéieefi

Leta?

 

fil‘ I"
‘ A..-l
001135111101;

‘10 Iswd 10-). edd‘ J's dunet'imm mm

2!!

TABLE 21

A SW, FOR ALL PERSONALITY norms, OF SIGNIFICANCE
VALUES OF THE ANALYSES 0F VARIANCE

 

 

W M
Variance A B C D E F G J Total
Interpreter x .001 .001 .01 .001 x .01 .001 .001
Conditions at x x x x x x x 1:
Subject .05 .05 .05 .05 x .01 x x .01
Latin Square at x x .05 .05 x .05 x x

Interpreter by
Latin Squares x .05 x x x x x x .05

Conditime by
Latin Squares x x .05 .05 x x x x x

 

x as Not mgnificent

2?;
. :-

n -...
1L .

vi, r-r.‘ ‘w- 7‘-
v a): '1... ’ea.‘-’.d in.

;I- ~ ..onnm
.uu... .uli.

1S Jul-$5.113

"1‘I.L‘«.310¢fi."’.~’.' .LIA flQ’I . 3153438. A

troy-mum 1:; 150131111 em «10 smut-.17

 

12.0191?

[0 .

30.

YTL.L‘.!‘,0"iE '1'
(I O 6.
.[O . I00 . I00 .
X x X
'60. 1‘0. 31’) .
E0. x x
x X {‘0-
30 e 130. x

A cousin?

1: uderqneinI

x such: fnoi)
(30. 309 thR

x empa we}

Vd mierqtetnl
x «1:3an (11:33.1

:0 anotflhnns
x «nape and

 

Jusot‘itngta Sol-i .- x

TABIE 3a

mnmsmswnmmmmmmormnwmmsummpuma

ITEM

 

524525453443334535254255323345525563323532443
426534443522325554245254433244525523222534443
545335442523225655264265623455525613221533443
535433433443434444254355433345534524423443343

425545453543234545253155423345525522222233353

 

12 567890 3 56 90123 56 89 3 5 33 5
4 Innlullnm12222uzzmzzmm%3%3%wwu45%5mwm

3*: 3.15.5.1}

' ITAH

...-'Vf’l Ya -;". '

('7. [II
.L.;o’.

«I.
.w
J.

{J

r1

(23“.. .1 ...

0

:‘imil

I"
L.~l

"E

"1'

c
ad»

..'[x').i-L§;.17L3.

_._.

 

--

,..-.

ILLS . S. n
[3:341on «\SD‘MHQ.€MflMV890£$cx$EGN

M“

A $9. EEAEEVEFHEAFA.‘ ckAQCAuCS «39.2.1. JunxAg ..\.:\\...I\L:.~Ca 1k)»; C. ..\ x. u). n.- .: «...».knk ‘.c.

93.1

 

J. 5.3 A, ......kA. Alf: ..-..S 3 ES \\.A\....\\..v§ \FQS “63.11.13,; ... 313.2. .\..~1r.n....n.. .L 2.. .Q .\..~..

Z 30... \TCS EfiEExfiAEFZCAEE ES “CAI: «C 383 CFCoEES 3.6.5631... ......CE 1.

fl n.1,... EAecx ...»...uExflAfi; :u.\#\«\u.\.«3 {abut 21k \#£\E€.%.fi.na:‘ L76“... \....\.r S c... .s. .x. ”LILAC“

3 ...1\¥.CP\.EE\#\.¢S 3.3 50.9. aaeaSa$Sxo .652 53.333“... 36.1.9.0” Slavick5$5

..«AC.

“\«r...

 

113m: 3b

ANALISIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE ROLE INTERPRETATION

 

 

SIMS 01’ DEGREES 0F

 

SOURCE 0?

w W
Condition: 41.2 I. 10.3 1.51
Intaprotora 489.1. 1. 122.3 17.98”“
Subjects 251.1 12 20.9 3.07“
Latin Squares 17.7 2 8.8 1.29
Interpreters by

Latin Squares 137.8 8 17.2 2.52*
conditions by

Latin Sqwoa 87.5 8 10.9 1.60
Residual 246.1 36 6.8

Total 1,270.8 74

 

* Significant :1: .05 Level of Confidence
** Significant at .01 Level of Confidence

m Significant at .001 Level of Confidence

dE EJEAT

HOIEAEIfiHEJIflI Tiufifl HHT fiUi JSHAIflAV HO $IBIIAM£

 

fl

ETD-‘13 TQM)“

$0 qaafiaaa

HO EMU?

30 EDEUDB
3

 

 

£E.£

***89.VI

:¢0£

iixuflfli aggguga
A 3.51 anotttbnoo
.‘s 1.98.“. awo'zqmmr
31 1.1a: ascetdua
S \‘J‘f. ”nape: mind
26 awoxq'xotnl

8 8.?EI seuaupe nLJaJ
my anoxsthnoo

8 3.78 aompa 5133.1
6E £.6&$ Lnuhiaefl
A? 8.0VSJ Isa-101‘

 

sanebiinoa 30 Laval 60. is Jasoltlngtu *
001195111100 ‘10 Level 10. n inanimate **
sax-195331300 '19 Lava! I00. 3's Juanitmta *‘W

TABEE.L

RATINGS B! FIVE INTERPRETERS OF'THE APPLICABILITY T0 RORSCHACE
INTERPRETATION OF ITEMS IN THE EIGHT EERSGHALITIAFACTCRS .
OF‘THE.HSRPP

W
Parscnalityaihctara
Intorprotur A B C D E F“ G J

A 1 '.L A

. t 2.7 2.4 2.0 2.0 1.6 3.5 2.5- n2.0é
b 2.7 2.9 2.2 2.8 2.3 3.3 2.5 2.3
c 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.1 3.5 3.2 3.3-
d 4.2 3.3. 3.3 2.3 3.0 4.3 . 2.7 2.5°
e 3.8. 3.0 3.2 3.5 2.0 3.8 3.3 2.3

 

 

Mean 3.3 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.2 3.7 2.8 2.5

08

A LlhAT

ECLfiCELLS !“ HTIJIILOIJEQW Eh: E0 flthflifiiflWTflL AVE? Y“ Ead195fi
. ;:.ft’.1“L‘3A't'-‘xf‘_i.-§.£ .I.{):Z.H'3fl T130111 [QT HI tu‘deI'i'I '10 PiOI'ZA’fiEL‘i‘EM’IEI
i qqflflfl iHT RD

 

atotaa'E-wcdflnuozs'xe‘l

‘.
I u

a 1 H G 0 8 A 1aiafiq1fi¢al

 

I‘ll: 62.5: ‘31? 39.!- 0.3 0.3 4‘“; V09 3
$054: 109 it . 20R 803 (to: 908 V05; d

 

 

I I p f
30': \o‘. ‘.(X &o? 8.3 5.: .805 SOA -"
5-."x 1:03: got 0.9 EOE ‘0' 00‘ "10E 8
'3.- 3o 1: EU: { I‘ 8.9 \\.r: Q.Q E0: “ABM

 

DISCUSSION

Interpreters

Three questions were posed in this study. The first question
askad.whether there were certain differences in Rorschaeh inter-'
pretation which were attributable to the interpreter rather than
the records presented to him. This question was answered in the
affirmative for the entire MSRPP scale and also for six of the
eight personality factors cosposing the scale. Only for these per-
sonality factors was the question answered in the negative:
emotional.underbrestraint vs. emotional overdrestraint; and.ne-
glectful carelessness vs. responsible conscientiousness. Thus the
interpreters seem to be introducing something extraneous into their
interpretations far all personality variables except the latter two.
For some reason, this kind of interpreter error is_mininized in
these personality variables.

It was also found that the size of the interpreter variance
markedly varied trom.personality factor to personality factor. As
‘was shown above, this may well represent errors of interpretation
which are a function of the personality of the interpreter. This
observation 1. related to that of Filer (9) who found that the points
emphasized in clinician's reports were related to ratings of their

own personality characteristics.

 

EIOIEQEUL «'2 Id

ared'e'xq'reinl

runway a‘s'xi‘i MIT Jabm'e. aid? at heaoq stew snottaeup eeItiT
nah-:1: doorbe'xofl m‘: asemte‘l’iib atone: stew owed: 'aedd’eml boisa
12311;! 'zon'd‘e'r 'fFvfi‘n'I'g‘tfithi' 911.3 of eidstudt'md's 919w dokdw moireie'xq
out? at bet-32mm: asw noiiaeup sirfl‘ .mh! Cd beimeae'rq 21710091 ml:
9.1.? 'io xtz: to? «walls has eisoe {W4 Muse eds! 101 evliemifia
-'xer-' 93mm 'm'i' 21:10 .sinos edd' gataoqmoo atod’os'l Whisnoa'x'eq J'dgla
89".{'.1‘."}"ul 9dr ru‘. bereuana notd’auup eds sew atod'oo'i alliance
«~91! has weirdest-«'15 we [anemone .z-v «mariner-rebut: inaction!
9.1": emf; .meamxno tineromtoo nidtumquot .av asoneaele'zeo IMi-teiu
rink;- r-Jn: isle-amtrte audience antsubo'xd'ni ed 03' cases ateJo-s new];
.04.? teens: ed: imam 'seidol'xsv ‘.gJIILeznoe'xeq LB) 10': snotisJo'xq'xeorgt
r51: maintain: (:1: tone m-ie'xq'xed’ni '10 but»! 31:11.1 .mase': mos ao'i'
.aeldermv vJusnoa'mq ween”:

sorrel-Lev tetra-min}: ed!- 10 sate 3d: J'srb‘ bxwo’i 0-31: em: 5'I
«3.5 Jamal mounts-otter; 0.)“ 10.1081 utilsnoa'xeq m'fl behav gingham
rsraiis.3'"‘:tz_'I-31:1t ”.0 322.1113 J: 9391p? 113': man: :3th .ovocis men's am:
ain't .“1-3Je'rq'1'nr-5F: exit '10 '{itleuoeueq mi: '10 antiwar“. a was .iohiw

's

ad'vttoq ‘.«LiJ‘ 3:21:5- E-‘nio’. ortw ('2?) tail“! :5 +311 mt ‘xaisie': at aetimrxyxio

no.1"! '1'.) flfiltiJ‘n'x :rd‘ heifers: e'mw shoe-3': maictaflo rt!- Fae.e.‘.:-:.e:£r.u:-_-

.aot fahetosurio ‘.;.t.tL:.co:--:eq mo

 

32

Degrees of Information

The second question asked whether increasing the amount of in-
formation available in Rorschach records affected the interpretation
of the records. This question was not answered in the affirmative
in any of the analyses. However, it was shown above that interpreters
can discriminate bettmen the S's who took the Rorschachs, Since the
interpreters can discriminate the subjects, and since the only in-
formation they had was Rorschach information, they must have used
this Rorschach information. But , it was found that different amounts
of information do not result in changes in Rorschach ratings. The
most reasonable explanation for these findings would seem to be that
the minimal information conditions, the core-concepts and the scoring
smmary, contain enough information to make an interpretation. In
other words the Rorschach would seem to be a highly redundant test,
with much more information available than the bare minim needed to
sketch out an interpretation. This redundancy, of course, is a very
useful property of the Rorschach. If the test were not so redundant,
one would not have an opportunity for the constant checking and
cross-checking of hypotheses which most clinicians believe essential
to valid Rorschach interpretation.

These findings have a direct bearing upon the experiments of
Grant, Ives and Ranzoni (11), and Caldwell, 22 2;. (3). In both
these studies, Rorschach psychograms and successively larger units
of information were interpreted by clinicians. No differences in
interpretation were found in either study with various degrees of

3'5

no}: rentals}; '10 seemefi

«:12: n .i'mroms 3d? 7.15:1". ';.«-.=:rim-:.’: trained»; .beiws uotéaeup bnoosa edT
. mm: 3' :3’131‘33’11': 'ui'r min-fife abreast ibmlna’mfi at aidsiisvs scrim”:
} qvt.l'.a.r':.t':‘is mlf a: grammar. Jen saw moire-.131}: aid? .3531099'1 en: lo
armre’chmint in”: mind: [mod-3 22,-3' fl Jewewcfi .asa‘cisns ed: 10 ‘91s {Lt
exit" ”nth ,edsndca'xofi mi: who: odor "3'8 sdd' neswd‘ed s-isutmt‘xoaib use
«at '.gilcro eu!‘ aunts bras . zi::«~.af,dua ed: .atsmtml'msifi mo autetqtetni
been evsd ran-i1 2,3951: ‘noi’rnmo'inf dosdoa'zofi new bed 23:41 maximal
sinuous; Jae-1:91:11) J’s-11' bmrc‘iz saw 31: .im: .nottsmo'i‘ni dosdoatofl aid:
an‘T .annié 3'1 Lianne-mm} .55: «3913mm at three: Jon ob nollamo’mi to
that ed a: men 5wa zanibfii": seen: 10% notisnsque eldsrroana-I Jenn
ant-mos ari‘r arm afrqaunmns'xco ad: . 3.10131: "no: nut-..‘sarxo‘int mum ed:
LL! .«'10.?1’.%‘-JE:-'£t‘._'.l 'pfird: as. 9:40.21 0.? acriam'm'mj; Harman ntanoo cash-ma
.J'uafi inanrmha-v '.{Idjgid’ .3 ad or mass thow dosdoa'mfl edJ‘ ab'mw write
03’ banana sun-1mm and ed? ["21" .aldsflavs (tenant-grin}: Mon n'num dd'tw
my; a n.‘ games '1'.) .‘gcqsiwae': 31:1“? “misfits-mush}. as me dermis
“menace“: on Jon Mon-I #29! ...~:_5- '«i'I .dcsdna'xmi ed: ‘10 {.mqo'xq Moan
has graham; hmd'asmo stir} 101 v3 wr'zotgqo an ever! ion binow sac
.Ds.I':J.-.r=.«a'.:e wanted mac's-33:12! 3 Jean rinIJw ass-adioqm lo antioedo-cso'xo
.noldno‘e'xqtsmt dosdostofi bifsv o:

in stmantiteqzr.‘ art} 1:12:51: '.._’.-I'i.t'1..'3‘.'l(‘.' Joe-LEE- a 19V 1‘? 33351311121 eacrfl'
d-‘rod at ((3) Lg E: ..[Iu'me-Q mus .(IJZ) Inoanaf: has 2.va ..'?zze'z‘v.)
‘ 3.11m: reg-xii {invina-moua bras euus'rgodmca'; dosdomofl .amtifima sand:
‘ rd: asnzrzn'l'iih oi"; .Hrmkstnll‘o {c1 fw-isrq'xotnk stew onlisrnolni ‘lo

‘30 asarqsb'rszmimv :{sz what-'3. «c.1139 r11" bum": 319w nci'isé‘e'tq'xsi'ni

information. Caldwell, et . g. concluded that " . . .the quantitative
categories into which Rorschach responses may be translated repre-
sent meaningful behavioral attributes and that. . .little information
is sacrificed by relying solely on these quantitative data.“ Grant
gt. 9; concluded: *Goncerning intraérater agrement, there was no
particular advantage or disadvantage to using the full Rorschach
protocol over the formal aspects alone." A
Considering the results of these two experiments and also the
present one, we may be able to formulate a more general explanation.
In the two previous experiments there was only one minimal inform-
ation condition, the psychogram (or scoring record.) One could not
differentiate betwaen effects resulting from the psychogram as a
minimal information condition, and effects due to some special prop-
erty of the psychogram itself, e.g. , its quantitative nature. In the
present experiment however, there are two minimal information con-
ditions, the core-concepts and the psychogram. One can differentiate
betwoen effects due to minimal information conditions and those due
to special properties of the psychogram. I The finding is that there
is no difference between interpretations based upon an of the actress
of infomation. Thus, the conclusion seems to be that additional in-
formation, beyond that in the minimal information condition makes no
difference in interpretation. The results here do not support Cald-
well's gt. 2;. asstmption that their‘ results were due tofspecial
property of the psychogram, since there was no difference between
interpretations based upon core-concepts or psychogram.

evtistid'rtssgv 5-: '15...‘ ran? :«ebuionoo L9, .313 (flea-7:21:83 not termini
~eaqeu stBLPJ I} ed gem sausages: dosdosmcfl duidw odni 3311039339
aotdsmtcint 3;};EE...*;.J has csindtuiis Isuotvsded Luigcfinsam inns
Janna ".sinfi ovilniifnsup seed? no vision gntvleu 2d beofiliuosa at
on new axed: ,inamaemgs us:31-s13ni gntnueonoO” :hehnionoo .ga .gg
dnsdoaaofi Lind on; gut:u o: sassnsvhcaib no sgsiusvhs usinolruaq
".euoin aiooqss Lemuel and zero Iooodouq

and cafe has aineniueaxa cud ssedfi 10 situaeu ed: garmentsnoo
.noissnsqus $313393 atom a sinfumuot oi aids ed gem 3w ,sno tnseerq
-guoint Laminkm one vino saw grad: einemtaeqxw esotverq our edJ nI
ion bison one (.buooam gnkuoon so) ncagodozaq eds ,notilbnoo moire
a as usunonagzo ed: nmufi guldlnaou atoelle noewied siniinetellib
-qouq Lsioeqa macs 0‘ sub 3309119 has .aettlbnco noiismuofiui Lamintm
:xfl n1 .otfldsn eviiaiiinsup sit ..3.e ‘iIeaJi msuuodovaq ads is {its
uses noiisntoini Lnninim ow: ems 31913 ,usvewod inemlueqxe Jaeaeaq
eisiineuellib nso unO .mnugodovaq ed: fins adqoonvo-srao on: ,znotdib
sub sands has enotdibnco noiismuofini Inninhu or sub 3399113 seaweed

cued: Jedi at guibnii ed? .msunodotaq and lo asitteqouq Isioeqe oi

 

aeomnou and lo was anon afififid enoidsasuqustnt assured sauna»? lb on at
-::.‘r. Lou-onus. E's-fl 0-." o: alas-as notwionoo on: .smfi‘ .musmotn: '10
on “swam nofiJLnnoo noiisuuoiui Lsmtnim ed: at ind: busted ,noiJsmuol
-b£sO dtoqqyn ion ob 319d cliuaeu odf .Uoiiniorqmsdnt n1 sonstelltb
Lsioeqs OJ sub 919w ciiuueu ricdi fed: aotiqmnesn .;E .g; s'fiew
naswded eonstefiltb on sew swat: sorta £neugodovsq and lo ataeqouq

.xurgodozeq To edqronoo-ouoo noqu Leann anotdsuetcueJnl

34¢

Rorschachs

The third question asked whether the: Rorschachs of different .
patiuts were interpreted differently. This question was answered
affirmatively for the MSBPR scale as a whole, and for five-of the
eight personality factors. It was not so answered for these pero-
sonality factors a motivation for leng‘ term goals 3 obs assiveeph‘obie
reaction; and so: conflict. I '- ‘

Apparently the interpreters were not able to distinguish between
the Rorschachs at all on these three personality factors. Also», as
was mentioned above, where the interpreters were; able to discriminate
betwaen the Rorschachs, the discrimination was coarse rather than-
fine. In other words, although some individuals. were discriminated
from the group, many were not. Thus, although the hypothesis was
generally borne out, there exists much room ‘for inprovemmt in
Rorschach interpretation.

Generally, however, the interpreters can differentiate betwem
the Rorschachs of different subjects; he” the some things are not
said for all subjects. This, of course, is a necessary pro-condition
for establishing the validity of the Rorschach test. For, if
Rorschach interpretations could not distinguish betwaen different
subjects, the test could not be valid. However, this study by no
means establishes the validity of the Rorschach test, since there
was no provision for evaluating the accuracy of the interpreters,

he“, no criterion group was included. ‘

 

edssdoouofl

Juercltib in aflosdoauofi ed: rediedv nexus uoiJaewp buifii sdT
bau=vans 33w noiiueup sin? .tiinsrofilib bsieuqusfui stew stunting
9J3 lo evil to} has ,3iodw n on since iifiBM on: 101 vieviismutlls
arse sand} rel borusaas 02 Jon saw 11 .suotosl urtisnoaroq snake
otdcdh-evlsaeado guises mus: gnoi tel noifsvliom :auodosl vsiisnoe
.Jotiinco xss has gnoiJoseu

assured dstsgnidatb o: aids Jon stew arcterqretni on: {Isnsusqqfi
as ,oaiA . 103031 [itisaosreq 991d: sasdi no iis 3s sdbsdoauofi ed:
ateninfiuoaib or aids 919w erstetquedni ed: auedw ,9vods hanoitnam saw
and: media: causes ssw notrsntmiroaib odd .sdosdosrofi and assured
heisntriuosib stew eisubtvibnt amps figuodéis .sbuow radio aI .enil
ans cieedtoqu ed: imaodtis ,aufiT .ion stew vnsm ,quoug odd most
at Jaemevotqni rel moor noun sistxe sued: .tso enuod viisseaea
.aotisdorquoint doadosrofl

uncured ainiineteilib use susisxqreint 9dr .mevswod .viisusnoa
son are ansifiJ own: ads .‘g‘; {aicetdus inere?ltb lo snosdoaroh an:
noiJfbnco-euq vusasooan a at ,ssunoo lo ,eidT .aiootdna iis sci hiss
it .uoi .Jaer dosisauofi 0d: 10 udibiisv ed: naidatidadse to!
snoreQRIb seaweed dsiunnilaln ion bison anoiisderqueeni doadoauofi
on {d {huts aid: ,1evawofi .biisv ed ion since Just on: .aioegdua
9151: seats ,ian) dosdoatofl ed) to (dihkisv edJ a ustidsrse annem
,2rolauqterni on: to gosruoos on: gniisuisvo not notalvorq on new

.oebuioni asw quota meteorite on .,Q,;

36

Implications
This study may be viewed as an exploratory attempt at locating

the' variables pertinent to Rorschach interpretation. It is just a
beginning, and a series of experiments would ufloubtedly be needed

to investigate more fully the nature of these variables and their
interrelations. For ennple, the results of this study are a func-
tion of the test-instrument used. The rating scale used here is very
different from the usual “written out" clinical interpretation of the
Rorschach. The use of the rating scale undoubtedly is a restriction
on the freedap of expression that the clinician has in the more con-
ventional Rorschach report. In this study, the subtlety of expres-
sion of the usual written interpretation was sacrificed in favor of
the quantifiability of the rating scale. It would be well to repli-
cate it using other test instruments and, if possible, full clinical
reports.

The results of this study are also a function of the particular
interpreters used. It might well be replicated with other inter-
preters, to investigate the sorbent to which findings are specified
to the interpreters who participated, rather than interpreters in
general. For instance, it was noted above that there was negligible
interpreter error on We personality factors. It seems quite possible
that a stun using different interpreters might find that they had
minimal error on different personality factors .

Uith respect to the group of Rorschachs used, it seems less
likely that the results might be of limited generality, since the

cm) its: -' {<1er
_-.-.x$;;h«uo.i in Seaside ~.-r;oi.e'to.£qm as up. {er-vb! 4:. mm ‘._-:fiu-‘s aid?
3 Jan? a}. J; .ricusd'e'xqaecmi :iomios'rofi or insulin; midst-33v or”
‘.-_ teen 90' fir/2331:0111“: throw amen-remit to ashes :3 bus ,gnimuiged
rim-ii has azalc'si'mv eaenli' lo autism ad: 2112111! 92cm 5333:3239an o:
-:mu’1 e are '{IIIJ‘C am '10 eo‘hme'x odd" ,elontsxe to? .aaold‘sierxednl
usv «3.2: eat-ed Lees elm-"- satin: ed’l‘ .lfz-sen nominal-d aed‘ ed: ‘10 ml:
or” '10 field'scrcw'xq'zed'nt Installs "d'no xted'n'rw" Duet: 9:33 am“! 3.:e'xe'3c'nb
motions-85': s at tilndduohm elsos {unmet ed: lo em: 9fo .ies 1331051
«roe 9201:! 9.1;? a}: asu‘ ”keratin ed: ind.) misae'que to miner's 9M no
-se'::._:_:. '10 \33:.-£Jdua out? (chute: atdd’ III .d’toqs': riaarlua‘roJ-Z Ismll'nev
'lc 'IOVB'I mt [wellness new achfsss'rq-Iemt maul-m Lanes 9le "2.9 note
--‘:.r_.;s'x a: He! ed bmow ..fl .eisoa raids: en} ‘te {Jflidsilt-rrmufg eds
Looizii'o III-..’}. ,etn’taaoq '11 ,bas sinemrnd'ant feed.“ radio 32,111.le 3!: eds:
.ad‘roqe‘:
'iflIflOl-‘J'L'uq mi)" '10 {IO’ZJ‘CEL/X a calls at: than am 31. .33me MT
-'md'ni: 'I:.-:I:rc ..'fl-w Kawasaki-:18: ed Lieu fright .+I .beau sueterqr'xemt
{milks-sue: 3325 suninni'i doldw ed in fire :rn'J‘ e.ts-=.tJr..-'.—-'rn..’. uJ‘ “sued-3m.
.rzi ca'ete-rr‘r'nt-d‘nl msdd‘ 'If‘d38'f .bed’sqreiéess; om: “Mamie: ed? 03

slots-311139;: aw stem J'mld' ovods boson saw at .eemsnl do"! .iumu-ag

' sldiaaoq 9.9th amt-as. 5']: .s'xod'ns‘l thinnest” owo‘ no mute Isis-"411.3351
{and ven'd‘ J'sds‘ Emil Janis: ared'e'zqteird: ereillzb salsa than a surf:
.a'msss'i gillsnoe'mq .taeue'l'lii- so some Inmhxim

:::-3:.-.£ ens-«.2 6:1 ..h'aau adosdoa'xofl (to gut-«:3 ed: M." imqseu mu

ed: gem-'2 ,‘.;d'£1's'5:2n03 fefhnfi '20 and mm 3111mm eds: fend vE'-:.‘.t£

36
sample was fairly large and selected at randan frat a large popu-
lation.

Validity of the Rorschach

The question of validity was not investigated here because it
was felt that this would tend to. overcmplioate an already capliq "
sated «perinatal design. However, this type of Mt could
provide information about the validity of the Rorschach if a suit-
able criterion were available.

' ‘ ‘ ‘ ' I] r F e I l“ ° ’ . " s

. , x e ‘ _ -- -¢ .- N I \, ~‘ . . - e4- 0 e. o. . . _ ‘
«a.» 3‘... .L . 2.4. .- . .7 u 1;» z._ M .-...I . .. .

J

0' '

A?! ~-_.‘
.1... . ~~ .

' o' v- ’ \

"- V." .-':5' o ‘e' c n“). ’- "
-b~"" ‘.'—'e ’v- ’ u ‘ ‘4‘ Me v

' ' . r 0 t ‘ O s ‘- o - e ‘
' ‘ - _' ty. " - '3 g 's . .‘1 i.\"v~‘ '8' «x I r‘ ‘ '2' ‘r“‘ ‘ 'I - . " 5-- us 5 -~ D . v- ‘
J - A 0 ‘ I ‘ -. .. \J V ‘. ' ,, .l ; . I I" l a .A ' f {-.. ' Q,“ .. .':..“% l“: ‘3,” ..'. I. -.‘- 'e 4‘. .) ii‘y).fiu ’4 ’1‘!( j 2.; '.

v . i. . _ ... ‘. .j . . . ., .... ' .. , ., , . I. .....°., , ..

..‘. J: '3 H 3:" '~‘.”" . . \ .‘H 3.1%: \3 -J' ' (1' .' ' '-..a'. . -.. 13..“‘333 . .-—-’ din. Lk 13(1)?) '33de

‘. ‘ . _ . .'.-. o. , :. a, r ,. .9. .- .', ., ' A.“ '_ 1. ‘
«.2 ..~' .' ..L ‘ .v - ._ r zi-fi ...O [.0 _._..z. . 1V . -.‘ ”but. 2042.) -..J“"I.. 0 all ‘1 ...;TA’I';

. . ru - 4- ' o-. ‘ '5 :‘fi'f‘ - rr. "\
f‘ti .}.1.‘.‘= 5.9..“ u’ 9.1"

SUMMARI

Five clinical psychologists interpreted l5 Rorschachs which
varied in degree of completeness of information. The degree of in-
formation varied from the psychogram or core concepts to the entire
Rorschach record. All interpreters were asked to fill out a person-
ality inventory, MSRPP, for each Rorschach they were given. The
MSRPP was used as a quantifiable substitute for the usual Rorschach
interpretation. The data were analyzed by the Latin Square type of
analysis of variance. A study of the results indicate that:

(a) There are differences in Rorschach interpretation which
are attributable to the interpreter rather than the records pre-
sented to him. The results also suggest that personality differences
among the interpreters may well account for this effect.

(b) Changing the uncut of information available did not seem
to affect the Rorschach interpretation. Apparently even the mini-
mal information conditions contained enough information for an
interpretation-4t least for the rating scale equivalent of an
interpretation.

(c) The Rorschachs of different patients were interpreted
differently. However, the discrimination involved was coarse
rather than fine.

 

 

ERR-£408

;'.!:.i.'f;r 3&033303'10fl BI. heteuaneimt adamoIodo‘ch Isotnflo evL’E
—th "-zc surges er-‘l‘ .uotdsmo‘ml 'io seened’elqmoo to smash at bomv
eutd’m emf oi anoonoo 92:00 To rnmodovaq or“ not! berusv‘ 11013114"on
«08'.qu s we rm. o: boxes are»: automaton: ID. .MOoe'z doadoauofi
edT ..To‘rlgq emu germ dssdoa'xofi firm-e rel (HERE! .2103va with:
:iosdne-xofi [sum :er 'm‘l eim‘ia‘so’ua eldsi’llsmesp s as been asw W
‘20 e Lg? e'rsupa anal ed? 156 [swam new sin!) 91!? .motisiemed‘ul
was eisotfisnl od'J’use-x ad: ‘10 whose A .ecashsv 'to sinuous

[told-s unlistmgrtflnl dosdoatcofl at soone-xe'i‘itb e'ss erorfl‘ (a)
was 3f;“.'CI.')»;-'£ not} ass-’3‘ radars-x red-numeral ed? 03 oldadndl'ro‘d's .913
seeder-"fill; grilsncva'mq Jedi $3933.03 oaLs sd‘Lnseu edT .mtn' oi {wines
.J'oo'i'ie sis} 101 #:1110995 LEew gem aresemednl or” gnome

mesa d'ou tic-b czldsflsvc notismo‘iui lo dancers add" gut-gnaw (0’)
«min: en's new {£1119qu .nolssde'rq'xed‘nl dosdosuofi ed? Joe'ns of
as to”: {to theme m3: 53:10:19 hetfisd'noo snow-Limos soften-told Les!
as '10 dmlsvhrgw slices mum: edd' uo‘l Jae-ell is—noidad‘s‘rquemt
.nolisd'omeim‘.

honouring-in}. -3'£e'-: ..d‘nstd'sq Jnevs‘i’zjb '5", encodes-rod edT (o)
swoon new bevlawfl: nos'ufaniazl‘xoal’n mi: .1691!!on .‘chne'm‘liif

earth and: redder

1.

3.

4.

5.

9'.

10.

11.

13.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beck, 8. J. s'- 131. Vol. I .Basie Preeesees
Grune a. Stratton, New ark, 1959.

123:- Vol. II A Variety of
Personality Pictures, Grune a Stratteu, new York, 1950.

 

Well, B. a De, 71M, Ge ‘e, m, Ie Ne M Mek, Se
Levels of data in Rorschach Interpretation. {5413. M“

1952, 8, 374-379.

Cattell, R. B. rp and other coefficients of pattern similarity.
M. 1949. 14» 279-398- .. . .. .

Cronbach , L. J. ”Pattern Tabulation." : A statistical method
for analysis of limited patterns of scores, with particular
reference to the Rorschach test. m. M. m"
1949. 9, 149-171.

, and Gleser, G. 0. Assessing Similarity between
profiles. meme, 1953, 50, 45M”-

DuMas, F. M. A quick method for analysing the similarity of
profiles. 1. 913. m" 1946, 2, 80-83.

Eds-ma. A. E. Wmnmmnm.
Rinehart 8: 00., Inc., New York, 1950.

film, R. The Clinicians Personality and his case reports.

unpublished Ph D. dissertation. University of Michigan.

Gaier, E. L. and Lee, M. 0. Pattern Analysis: The configural
approach to predictive measurement. m. Qfll. , 1953 ,
50, W.

Grant, )4. Q., Ives, V. and Rennoni, J. H. Reliability and
validity of Judges ratings of adjustment on the Rorschach.

221999;. mm. 1952. 66. (2) 20 p.

Klopfer, B., Ainsworth, 14., Xlopfer 31., and Holt, R.

W 1222 mm mm. Yonkers. N. Y.
world Book Cmpsny, 1954.

‘_-._ and Kelly, D. T33 W Technig g. Yonkers,
N. Y. world Book Company, 1954.

 

Yh‘iAfiOOILIE If?

sesaeoo'x‘i otssa I .LoV .3593? 3' ' .I. .3 .ioefi
.0291 ,3?on we?! ,noJ'Js'xd’a as ammo

lo $9.th A. II ..[o‘i Joe? s‘dosdsamfl .
.0691 ($1210: we?! ,aotd's'xd'a :3 sum) .se'md'ofl witness-w!

QC; ‘31:.) 111813.: has CPI a: .dBflGM QQA 01,.) ‘3‘:er ‘.a 01‘ Ca .mwm
. .oioxs‘i .nLL'O .I. .uoiJsd‘enqranI dosdoatofi rd: stab ‘lo sieved
.QVE-M‘E .8 .3391

.zdimitmis mating ‘10 “astonieoo radio has qt .8 ..‘ ..[Lsd‘d'sa
.8934)“: «A1 «9331 «W

indict: £89133”st A a".noiétsnrd.sT crew's!" .1} ..I ,dosdno'to
mlnoié'wq :Eth .391098 '10 311193qu haunt; lo stem to?
..d'masei-f ..todoxs‘l .gtfl .Jaed’ dosdos'xofl ed: ct sonnet”
.1159.“ .9 .QAPI

 

seemed tiémlwlri .mtaseaeA .0 .3 Jessie has. ~
fink-03A .93 {CEQI gem. M .801n01t]

'Io Witsflmla 9d: gnix'cLsm ‘10? bodies! fiomp A .M .‘E .sal'iufi
'58‘08 ‘9‘ £639!- «@9223 'w OE “931°"!

.do'msae'x Lso.t-:,o.[o:isxag g; W W .3 .A @51st
.9391 giro! we}! ..onI ..ou :% muons

 

.z-zhoqe'r. case sir: b.1355 ‘ccrflsma'ze-i smiutnLEU MIT .5: Jam.

.ImgizdoiM ‘30 $131.va .noflst'tessib .a as manage:

Lu'wgriusoo ed"? sat-aw are-133‘! .0 .34 .eed has ..I .d Jew.)
.EEQI ...[Iufl .Lodoxai .d'neme'wasem evid'oibe'tq of doso'xqqn
.su—ou .CE

 

bra; mailidstiefl .h .1. .luosasfi has .V ,oevI ..b .l-l .51:er
.n'osdoa'xofl ed: as imam-autos to agniJm seam: '10 udlbflsv

«CV—"9) 63 5-391 mm .mm

.31 “Io-‘1' has ... ‘..-' tolqofii ..M .U-xowanii ..a' ,m'iqom

J .u .BtsfifioY Jessi—09 mags “its: Wm
A“?! umqmoo Hoof! bitch}

,a'xsflqu .s 13243;!!ng dosrfo mofl LITE“ .0 $1193 ins '
TGfiI ,a‘mqmoo >{oou wfifil'row .Y .1.

 

.1

£9

.01:

.11

38A

14. Lorr, 14. Rating scales and check lists for the evaluation of
psychopatholog. Psychol. El, 1954 , 51, 119-127 .

l5. , Ithenstein, E and Jenkins, R. A.factor analysis
of personality ratings of outpatients in psychotherapy.

sm new» 1953. 48. 511-511..

16. , Schaefcr, E., Rubenstein, E. and Jenkins, R.

in analysis of an outpatient rating scale. ,1. 93.13. mg}.
1953. 9. 296-299.

17. Osgood, C. E. and Susi, G. J. A neasun of relation determined
by both neon difference and profile information. m.
an... 1952. 49. 251-262.

18. Pumps. In and saith. J. G. W W8 W
technique. New York, Grnne and Stratton, 1953.

19. War. R. WWIQWW-
m m M. New York, Gums and Stratton, 1954.

20. Webster, H. A note on profile similarity. chhgl. fl”
. 1952, 49. 538-539.

(I)

1‘2

“.to uoiiwfnve en)! 10': ed'atl :{oedo has 22:35.5: :3 33mm? .11 (no.1
.‘x‘QL-QU. ..EZE “369$ .Iim‘i ”@3351 .moloddsqodmcaq

 

abscissa Totem“: .L tcabinet. has :I .nfied‘artedwl .________ _____
.‘gqs'mdd'odmch mt adnetd'sqd‘no to earth's! 'zJiLsnoc'z 3:1 'to
eME‘HE—[Q‘ (8'43 g£39£ ..Iodogfia. 0.29-8- eggmfi .1:

.21. ,ambinet has ..’i .nled’anec'ufl ...?! (Intestine .
.ggdoxa‘; 4.1;; .1; .eLsea gun‘s-x d'neld'sqmo as To aimless «A

hnntmod'eb normalise 'io amass A .T. .0 ..tene has .3 .0 .boogso
..[odovsq .noid'curxo‘lnk smorq bins easeuelltb men .rb‘od ‘cd
.SoS-RS .PA .33911 um

beousvbix :rtomme'ggedgg gogtiosgofi .0 .l’. .dfisfiz has .1 .sqflihfl
.8291 ,nofissd'a has emf) ,zIroY wen .exrptmleed

.'~‘-n___J._“a‘§e¢ tinny-{0319;} g; I: is: d" W .fi .rstsdoa
.AEQI wows-m; bus ens-:0 ,i'xoY wen .W m M

...EJLUE .Iodoxgii .‘zdt'nslmte slfiorq no 93011 A .H .med'adei.’
REE-SEQ .93 «3391

.VI

.8£

.91

.OS

Date Due

ROOM USE um
i