Chapter 12 THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST Like the Rorscha

Chapter 12
THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST
Like the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) discussed in the
preceding chapter, the Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT) is a performance-based measure of
personality. This means that
TAT data consist of how people respond to a task they are given
to do, not what they may
say about themselves. In further contrast to self-report
measures, the TAT resembles the
RIM in providing an indirect rather than a direct assessment of
personality characteristics,
which makes it particularly helpful in identifying characteristics
that people do not fully
recognize in themselves or are reluctant to disclose.
The TAT is a storytelling technique in which examinees are
shown pictures of people or
scenes and asked to make up a story about them. The TAT
differs from the RIM in three
key respects. First, being real pictures rather than blots of ink,
the TAT stimuli are more
structured and less ambiguous than the Rorschach cards.
Second, the TAT instructions are
more open-ended and less structured than those used in
administering the RIM. Rorschach
examinees are questioned specifically about where they saw
their percepts and what made
them look as they did. On the TAT, as elaborated in the present
chapter, people are asked

only in general terms to expand on the stories they tell (e.g.,
"What is the person think-
ing?"). Third, the TAT requires people to exercise their
imagination, whereas the RIM is a
measure of perception and association. Rorschach examinees
who ask whether to use their
imagination should be told, "No, this is not a test of
imagination; just say what the blots
look like and what you see in them." By contrast, TAT takers
who say "I'm not sure what
the people in the picture are doing," or "I don't know what the
outcome will be," can be
told, "This is a test of imagination; make something up."
This distinction between the RIM and the TAT accounts for the
TAT having been called
an apperceptive test. As elaborated in Chapter 11, the RIM was
originally designed as a test
of perception that focused on what people see in the test
stimuli, where they see it, and why
it looks as it does. The TAT was intended to focus instead on
how people interpret what
they see and the meaning they attach to their interpretations,
and the term "apperception"
was chosen to designate this process. The development of the
TAT is discussed further
following the description of the test.
NATURE OF THE THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST
The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) consists of 31
achromatic cards measuring 9¼ x
11 inches. Fourteen of the cards show a picture of a single
person, 11 cards depict two or
more people engaged in some kind of relationship, three are
group pictures of three or four

people, two portray nature scenes, and one is totally blank. The
cards are numbered from
425
426 Performance-Based Measures
1 to 20, and nine of the cards are additionally designated by
letters intended to indicate
their appropriateness for boys (B) and girls (G) aged 4 to 14,
males (M) and females (F)
aged 15 or older, or some combination of these characteristics
(as in 3BM, 6GF, 12BG, and
l 3MF). Twenty cards are designated for each age and gender
group.
People are asked to tell a story about each of the cards they are
shown. They are told
that their stories should have a beginning, a middle, and an end
and should include what
is happening in the picture, what led up to this situation, what
the people in the picture
are thinking and feeling, and what the outcome of the situation
will be. When people have
finished telling their story about a picture, they are asked to add
story elements they have
omitted to mention (e.g., "How did this situation come about?"
"What is on this person's
mind?" "How is she feeling right now?" "What is likely to
happen next?"). In common
with a Rorschach administration, these TAT procedures
generate structural, thematic, and
behavioral data that provide a basis for drawing inferences
about an individual's personality

characteristics.
Structural Data
All TAT stories have a structural component that is defined by
certain objective features
of the test protocol. The length of the stories people tell can
provide information about
whether they are approaching this task-and perhaps other
situations in their lives as
well-in a relatively open and revealing fashion (long stories) or
in a relatively guarded
manner that conceals more than it reveals (short stories). Story
length can also provide clues
to a person's energy level, perhaps thereby identifying
depressive lethargy in one person
(short stories) and hypomanic expansiveness in another person
(long stories), and clues to
whether the individual is by nature a person of few or many
words. Shifts in the length of
stories from one card to the next, or in the reaction time before
the storytelling begins, may
identify positive or negative reactions to the typical themes
suggested by the cards, which
are described later in the chapter.
The amount of detail in TAT stories provides another
informative structural element of
a test protocol. Aside from their length in words, TAT stories
can vary in detail from a
precisely specified account of who is doing what to whom and
why (which might reflect
obsessive-compulsive personality characteristics), to a vague
and superficial description of
people and events that suggests a shallow style of dealing with
affective and interpersonal

experience. A related structural variable consists of the number
and type of stimulus
details that are noted in the stories. Most of the TAT pictures
contain (a) some prominent
elements that are almost always included in the stories people
tell; (b) some minor figures
or objects that are also included from time to time; and (c)
many peripheral details that are
rarely noted or mentioned. Card 3BM, for example, depicts a
person sitting on the floor
(almost always mentioned), a small object on the floor by the
person's feet (frequently but
not always mentioned), and a piece of furniture on which the
person is leaning (seldom
mentioned). Divergence from these common expectations can
have implications for how
people generally pay attention to their surroundings,
particularly with respect to whether
they tend to be inattentive to what is obvious and important, or
whether instead they are
likely to become preoccupied with what is obscure or of little
relevance.
Also of potential interpretive significance is the extent to which
TAT stories revolve
around original themes or common themes. A preponderance of
original themes may reflect
Thematic Apperception Test 427
creativity and openness on the part of the examinee, whereas
consistently common themes
often indicate conventionality or guardedness. As additional
structural variables, the

coherence and rationality of stories can provide clues to
whether people are thinking
clearly and logically, and the quality of the vocabulary usage
and grammatical construc-
tion in people's stories usually says something about their
intellectual level and verbal
facility.
Thematic Data
All TAT stories have a thematic as well as a structural
component. Like the thematic
imagery that often emerges in Rorschach responses, the content
of TAT stories provides
clues to a person's underlying needs, attitudes, conflicts, and
concerns. Because they depict
real scenes, the TAT cards provide more numerous and more
direct opportunities than the
Rorschach inkblots for examinees to attribute characteristics to
human figures in various
circumstances. Typical TAT stories are consequently rich with
information about the de-
picted characters' aspirations, intentions, and expectations that
will likely reveal aspects of
how people feel about themselves, about other people, and
about their future prospects.
These kinds of information typically derive from four
interpretively significant aspects
of the imagery in TAT stories:
1. How the people in a story are identified and described (e.g.,
"young woman," "pres-
ident of a bank," "good gymnast") and whether examinees
appear to be identifying
with these people or seeing them as representing certain other

people in their lives
(e.g., parent, spouse).
2. How the people in a story are interacting; for example,
whether they are helping or
hurting each other in some way.
3. The emotional tone of the story, as indicated by the specific
affect attributed to the
depicted characters (e.g., happy, sad, angry, sorry, enthused,
indifferent).
4. The plot of the story, with particular respect to outcomes
involving success or failure,
gratification or disappointment, love gained or lost, and the
like.
Behavioral Data
As when they are responding to the RIM and other performance-
based measures of per-
sonality, the way people behave and relate to the examiner
during a TAT administration
provides clues to how they typically approach task-oriented and
interpersonal situations.
Whether they appear self-assured or tentative, friendly or surly,
assertive or deferential, and
detached or engaged can characterize individuals while they are
telling their TAT stories,
and these test behaviors are likely to reflect general traits of a
similar kind.
Unlike the situation in Rorschach assessment, the structural,
thematic, and behavioral
sources of data in TAT assessment are not potentially
equivalent in their interpretive sig-

nificance. As discussed in Chapter 11, either the structural, the
thematic, or the behavioral
features of Rorschach responses may tum out to be the most
revealing and reliable source
of information about an individual's personality functioning,
and it cannot be determined
in advance which one it will be. On the TAT, by contrast, the
thematic imagery in the
stories almost always provides more extensive and more useful
data than the structural and
behavioral features of a test protocol.
Moreover, because the TAT pictures portray real-life situations,
and because test takers
are encouraged to embellish their responses, TAT stories are
likely to generate a greater
number of specific hypotheses than the thematic imagery in
Rorschach responses concern-
ing an individual's underlying needs, attitudes, conflicts, and
concerns. TAT stories tend
to help identify particular persons and situations with whom
various motives, intentions,
and expectations are associated. With respect both to the inner
life of people and the nature
of their social relationships, then, the TAT frequently provides
more information than the
RIM.
HISTORY
As befits a storytelling technique, the TAT emerged as the

outcome of an interesting and
in some respects unlikely story. Like the history of Rorschach
assessment, the TAT story
dates back to the first part of the twentieth century, but it is an
American rather than a
European story. The tale begins with Morton Prince, a Boston
born and Harvard-educated
neurologist who lectured at Tufts Medical College and
distinguished himself as a specialist
in abnormal psychology. Along with accomplishments as a
practitioner, teacher, and author
of the original work on multiple personality disorder (Prince,
1906), Prince founded the
Journal of Abnormal Psychology in 1906 and served for many
years as its editor. By the
mid- l 920s, he had come to believe that a university setting
would be more conducive to
advances in psychopathology research than the traditional locus
of such research in medical
schools, where patient care responsibilities often take
precedence over scholarly pursuits.
In 1926, Prince offered an endowment to Harvard University to
support an academic center
for research in psychopathology. The university accepted his
offer and established for this
purpose the Harvard Psychological Clinic, with Prince as its
first director.
On assuming the directorship of the Harvard Psychological
Clinic, Prince looked to hire a
research associate who would plan and implement the programs
of the new facility. Acting
on the recommendation of an acquaintance, but apparently
without benefit of a search
committee or consultation with the Harvard psychology faculty,
he hired an ostensibly

unqualified person for the job-a surgically trained physician and
PhD biochemist named
Henry Murray. Two years later, Prince retired, and in 1928
Murray succeeded him as
Director of the Clinic, a position for which, according to his
biographer, Murray "was the
first person to admit that he was unqualified ... though he had
done a good bit of reading"
(Robinson, 1992, p. 142).
Henry Murray was to become one of the best-known and highly
respected personality
theorists in the history of psychology. He remains recognized
today for his pioneering
emphasis on individual differences rather than group
tendencies, which as noted in Chapter
1 (see pp. 12-13) became identified in technical terms as an
idiographic approach to the
study of persons (as distinguished from a nomothetic approach
emphasizing characteristics
that differentiate groups of people). The main thrust of what
Murray called "personology"
was attention to each person's unique integration of
psychological characteristics, rather
than to the general nature of these characteristics. For Murray,
then, the study of person-
ality consisted of exploring individual experience and the kinds
of lives that people lead,
rather than exploring the origins, development, and
manifestations of specific personality
characteristics like dependency, assertiveness, sociability, and

rigidity ( see Barenbaum &
Winter, 2003; Hall, Lindzey, & Campbell, 1998, chap. 5). Most
of all, however, Murray is
known for having originated the Thematic Apperception Test.
When Murray ascended to the directorship of the Harvard
Psychological Clinic in 1928,
there was little basis for anticipating his subsequent
contributions to psychology. Born and
reared in New York City, he had studied history as an
undergraduate at Harvard, received his
medical degree from Columbia in 1919, done a 2-year surgical
internship, and then devoted
himself to laboratory research that resulted in 21 published
articles and a 1927 doctorate in
biochemistry (Anderson, 1988, 1999; Stein & Gieser, 1999). As
counterpoint to Murray's
limited preparation for taking on his Harvard Clinic
responsibilities, two personal events
in the mid-1920s had attracted him to making this career
change. One of these events
was reading Melville's Moby Dick and becoming fascinated
with the complexity of the
characters in the story, particularly the underlying motivations
that influenced them to act
as they did.
The second event was meeting and beginning a lifelong
friendship with Christiana Mor-
gan, an artist who was enamored of the psychoanalytic
conceptions of Carl Jung. Morgan
encouraged Murray to visit Jung in Switzerland, which he did in
1925. He later stated
that, in 2 days of conversation with Jung, "enough affective
stuff erupted to invalid a pure
scientist" (Murray, 1940, p. 153). These events and his

subsequent extensive reading in the
psychological and psychoanalytic literature, combined with his
background in patient care
and laboratory research, made him far better prepared to head
up the Harvard Psycholog-
ical Clinic than his formal credentials would have suggested. He
later furthered his own
education by entering a training program in psychoanalysis,
which he completed in 1935.
During his tenure as Director from 1928 to 1943, Murray staffed
the Harvard Psycho-
logical Clinic with a highly talented group of young scholars
and clinicians, many of whom
went on to distinguished careers of their own. Under his
direction, the clinic gained world-
wide esteem for its theoretical and research contributions to the
literature in personality and
psychopathology. As his first major project, Murray
orchestrated an intensive psychologi-
cal study of 50 male Harvard students, each of whom was
assessed individually with over
20 different procedures. Included among these procedures was a
picture-story measure in
which Murray had become interested in the early 1930s. A
conviction had formed in his
mind that stories told by people can reveal many aspects of
what they think and how they
feel, and that carefully chosen pictures provide a useful
stimulus for eliciting stories that
are rich in personal meaning. In collaboration with Morgan, he
experimented with different
pictures and eventually selected 20 that seemed particularly
likely to suggest a critical
situation or at least one person with whom an examinee would
identify. These 20 pictures

constituted the original version of the TAT, first described in
print by C. D. Morgan and
Murray (1935) as "a method for investigating fantasies."
The results of Murray's Harvard study were published in a
classic book, Explorations
in Personality, which is best known for presenting his
idiographic approach to studying
people and his model of personality functioning (Murray, 1938).
In Murray's model, each
individual's personality is an interactive function of "needs,"
which are the particular
motivational forces emerging from within a person, and
"presses," which are environmental
forces and situations that affect how a person expresses these
needs. Less well-known or
recalled is that the 1938 book was subtitled A Clinical and
Experimental Study of Fifty
Men of College Age. After elaborating his personality theory in
terms of 29 different needs
and 20 different presses in the first half of the book, Murray
devoted the second half to
presenting the methods and results of the 50-man Harvard study.
The discussion of this
research included some historically significant case studies that
illustrated for the first time
how the TAT could be used in concert with other assessment
methods to gain insight into
the internal pressures and external forces that shape each
individual's personality.

The original TAT used in the Harvard Clinic Study was
followed by three later versions
of the test, as C. D. Morgan and Murray continued to examine
the stimulus potential of
different kinds of paintings, photographs, and original
drawings. The nature and origins of
the pictures used in four versions of the test are reviewed by W.
G. Morgan (1995, 2002,
2003). The final 31-card version of the test was published in
1943 (Murray, 1943/1971) and
remains the version in use today. Ever the curious scientist,
Murray might have continued
trying out new cards, according to Anderson ( 1999), had he not
left Harvard for Washington,
D.C., in 1943 to contribute to the World War II effort. Murray
was asked to organize an
assessment program in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS),
the forerunner of the CIA,
for selecting men and women who could function effectively as
spies and saboteurs behind
enemy lines. A fascinating account of how Murray and his
colleagues went about this task
and the effectiveness of the selection procedures they devised
was published after the war
by the OSS staff (Office of Strategic Services, 1948), and
Handler (2001) has more recently
prepared a summary of this account.
As Rorschach had done with his inkblots, Murray developed a
scheme for coding
stories told to the TAT pictures. Also in common with
Rorschach's efforts, but for different

reasons, Murray's coding scheme opened the door for
modification in the hands of others.
Rorschach's system was still sketchy at the time of his death
and left considerable room for
additions and revisions by subsequent systematizers (see
Chapter 11). By contrast, Murray
(1943/1971) presented in his manual a detailed procedure for
rating each of 28 needs
and 24 presses on a 5-point scale for their intensity, duration,
frequency, and importance
whenever they occur in a story. This complex scoring scheme
proved too cumbersome
to gain much acceptance among researchers and practitioners
who took up the TAT after
its 1943 publication made it widely available. Consequently, as
elaborated by Murstein
(1963), many other systems for interpreting the TAT emerged
over the next 15 to 20 years;
some them followed Murray in emphasizing content themes, and
others attended as well to
structural and thematic features of stories.
Several of these new systems were proposed by psychologists
who had worked with
Murray at the Harvard Psychological Clinic, notably Leopold
Bellak (1947), William
Henry (1956), Edwin Shneidman (1951), Morris Stein (1948),
and Silvan Tomkins (1947).
Shneidman (1965) later wrote that the TAT had quickly become
"everybody's favorite
adopted baby to change and raise as he wished" (p. 507). Of
these and other TAT systems
that were devised in the 1940s and 1950s, only variations of an
"inspection technique"
proposed by Bellak became widely used. Currently in its sixth

edition, Bellak's text recom-
mends an approach to TAT interpretation in which an
individual's stories are examined for
repetitive themes and recurring elements that appear to fall
together in meaningful ways
(Bellak & Abrams, 1997). This inspection technique is
described further in the coding and
interpretation sections of the present chapter.
Aside from proposing different systems for interpreting TAT
stories, assessment psy-
chologists have at times suggested four reasons for modifying
the TAT picture set that
Murray published in 1943. The first of these reasons concerns
whether the standard TAT
pictures are suitable for use with young children or the elderly.
Young children may identify
more easily with animals than with people, some said, and the
situations portrayed in the
standard picture set do not adequately capture the life
experiences of older persons. In
light of these possibilities, Bellak developed two alternative
sets of pictures: the Children's
Apperception Test (CAT), intended for use with children aged 3
to 10 and portraying ani-
mal rather than human characters, and the Senior Apperception
Test (SAT), which depicts
primarily elderly people in circumstances they are likely to
encounter (Bellak, 1954, 1975;
Bellak & Abrams, 1997). Little has been written about the
utility of the SAT, however,

and the development of the CAT appears to have been
unnecessary. Research reviewed by
Teglasi (2001, chap. 8) has indicated that children tell equally
or even more meaningful
stories to human cards than they do to animal cards.
A second reason for questioning the appropriateness of the
standard TAT set is that all
the figures in them are Caucasian. Efforts to enhance
multicultural sensitivity in picture-
story assessment, particularly in the evaluation of children and
adolescents, led to the
development of the Tell-Me-A-Story test (TEMAS; Costantino,
Malgady, & Rogler, 1988).
Th.e TEMAS is a TAT-type measure for use with young people
aged 5 to 18 in which the
stimulus cards portray conflict situations involving African
American and Latino characters.
Research with the TEMAS pictures has confirmed that they are
likely to elicit fuller
and more revealing stories from minority individuals than the
all-Caucasian TAT pictures
(Costantino & Malgady, 1999; Costantino, Malgady, Rogler, &
Tusi, 1988), and there are
also indications that the TEMAS has cross-culture applicability
in Europe as well as within
the United States (see Dana, 2006).
As a third concern, there has been little standardization of
which of the 20 TAT cards are
administered and in what order to a person of a particular age
and gender, which has made
it difficult to assess the reliability and validity of the
instrument. Considerations in card
selection and the psychometric foundations of the TAT are
discussed later in the chapter.

However, dissatisfaction with widespread variation in these
aspects of TAT administration
influenced the development of two new TAT-type measures.
One of these newer measures, the Roberts Apperception Test for
Children (RATC), was
designed for use with young people aged 5 to 16 and portrays
children and adolescents
engaged in everyday interactions (McArthur & Roberts, 1990).
There are 27 RATC cards,
11 of which are alternate versions for males or females, and
each youngster taking the test is
administered a standard set of 16 cards in a set sequence, using
male or female versions as
appropriate. A revision of the RATC, called the Roberts-2
(Roberts, 2006) extends the age
range for the test to 18 and includes three parallel sets of cards
for use with White, Black,
and Hispanic children and adolescents. The second alternative
standard set of cards, which
also includes multiethnic pictures, is the Apperceptive
Personality Test (APT; Holmstrom,
Silber, & Karp, 1990; Karp, Holstrom, & Silber, 1989). The
APT consists of just eight
stimulus pictures, each of which is always administered and in a
fixed sequence.
Fourth and finally, some users of the TAT have found fault with
the generally dark,
gloomy, achromatic nature of the pictures and with the old-
fashioned appearance of the
people and scenes portrayed in them. It may be that these
features of the cards make it
difficult for people to identify with the figures in them or to tell
lively stories about them.
The TEMAS, by contrast, features brightly colored pictures and

contemporary situations.
Colored photographs have also been used to develop an
alternative picture set for use with
adults, called the Picture Projective Test (PPT), and some
research has suggested that the
relatively bright PPT cards may generate more active and more
emotionally toned stories
than the relatively dark TAT cards (Ritzler, Sharkey, & Chudy,
1980; Sharkey & Ritzler,
1985).
As alternative picture sets for use with young and elderly
individuals, the CAT, SAT,
TEMAS, and RATC have enjoyed some popularity in applied
practice. Each of these
measures also remains visible as the focus of occasional
research studies published in
the literature. However, none of them appears to have detracted
very much from clinical
applications and research studies of the original 1943 version of
the TAT. With respect to
alternative picture sets for adults, neither the APT, the PPT, or
any other proposed revision
in the TAT picture set has attracted much attention from
practitioners or researchers, despite
their apparent virtues with respect to standardization and
stimulus enhancement.
ADMINISTRATION
As spelled out in his 1943 Manual, Murray intended that

persons taking the TAT would
be asked to tell stories to all 20 of the pictures appropriate to
their age (child/adult) and
gender (male/female). The 20 pictures were to be shown in two
50-minute sessions, with a
1-day interval between sessions, and people would be instructed
to devote about 5 minutes
to each story. In actual practice over the years, TAT examiners
have typically administered
8 to 12 selected cards in a single session. Most commonly, cards
are selected on the basis
of whether they are expected to elicit stories that are rich in
meaning and relevant to
specific concerns of the person being assessed. With respect to
eliciting interpretively rich
stories, the most productive cards are usually those that portray
a person in thought or
depict emotional states or interpersonal relationships. The
selection of cards specifically
relevant in the individual case involves matching the content
themes commonly pulled by
the various cards with what is known or suspected about a
person's central issues, such
as aggressive or depressive concerns, problematic family
relationships, or heterosexual or
homosexual anxieties.
In selecting which cards to use, then, examiners need to
consider the content themes
typically associated with each of them. A description of the
TAT cards and the story
lines they usually pull follows in the interpretation section of
the chapter. With respect to
common practice in card selection, Teglasi (2001, p. 38) has
reported a consensus among
TAT clinicians that the most useful TAT cards are 1, 2, 3BM,

6BM, 7GF, 8BM, 9GF, 10,
and l 3MF. According to Teglasi's report, each of these 9 car ds
appears to work equally well
across ages and genders, despite their male, female, boy, or girl
designation. Bellak (1999)
recommends using a standard 10-card sequence consisting of
these 9 cards plus Card 4,
with the possible addition of other cards that pull for particular
themes. In the individual
case, then, the selected set should comprise all or most of these
9- or 10-card sets, with
replacement or additional cards chosen on the basis of specific
issues that are evaluated.
Two research findings relevant to TAT card selection should
also be noted. In an analysis
by Keiser and Prather (1990) of 26 TAT studies, the 10 cards
used most frequently were 1,
2, 3BM, 4, 6BM, 7BM, 8BM, 10, 13MF, and 16. In the other
study, Avila-Espada (2000)
used several variables, including the number of themes in the
stories each card elicited, to
calculate a stimulus value for each of them. On this basis, he
chose two 12-card sets that
he considered equivalent in stimulus value to the full 20-card
TAT set: one set for males
(1, 2, 3BM, 4, 6BM, 7BM, 8BM, 10, 13MF, 14, 15, and 18BM)
and one set for females
(1, 2, 3GF, 4, 6GF, 7GF, 8GF, 9GF, 10, 13MF, 17GF, and
18GF).

Turning now to the actual administration of the test, many of
the general considerations
discussed in Chapter 11 with respect to administering the RIM
apply to the TAT as well.
Test takers should have had an opportunity to discuss with the
examiner (a) the purpose of
their being tested (e.g., "The reason for this examination is to
help in planning what kind of
treatment would be best for you"); (b) the types of information
the test will provide (e.g.,
"This is a measure of personality functioning that will give us a
clearer understanding of
what you 're like as an individual, the kinds of concerns you
have, and what might be helpful
to you at this point"); and (c) how the results will be used (e.g.,
"When the test results are
ready, I will be reviewing them with you in a feedback session
and then sending a written
report to your therapist").
In preparation for giving the formal TAT instructions, the cards
that have been selected
should be piled face down on the table or desk, with Card I on
the top and the rest of the
selected cards beneath it in the order in which they are to be
presented. To minimize inadver-
tent influence of the examiner's facial expressions or bodily
movements, it is advisable for
the examiner to sit beside or at an angle from the person taking
the test, rather than directly
in front of the person. Once the test begins, whatever the
examinee says should be recorded
verbatim. Examiners can word-process the protocol with a
computer instead of writing it
longhand, should they prefer to do so, and a person's stories can
also be tape-recorded and

transcribed later on. There is no evidence to indicate that the
examiner's writing out the
record, using a computer, or tape-recording the protocol makes
any difference in the stories
that are obtained.
Examiners should begin the TAT administration by informing
people of the nature of
their task. The following instructions, based on Murray's
(1943/1971) original procedures
and modifications suggested by Bellak and Abrams (1997), will
serve this purpose well
with adolescents and adults of at least average intelligence:
I am going to show you some pictures, one at a time, and your
task will be to make up as
dramatic a story as you can for each. Tell what has led up to the
event shown in the picture,
describe what is happening at the moment, what the characters
are feeling and thinking, and
then give the outcome. Speak your thoughts as they come to
your mind. Do you understand?
When the TAT is being administered to adolescents and adults
of limited intelligence,
to children, or to seriously disturbed persons, the following
simplified version of the
instructions is recommended:
This is a storytelling test. I have some pictures here that I am
going to show you, and for each
picture I want you to make up a story. Tell what has happened
before and what is happening
now. Say what the people are feeling and thinking and how it
will come out. You can make up
any kind of story you please. Do you understand?

Following whichever of set of instructions is given, the
examiner should say, "Here is
the first picture" and then hand Card 1 to the examinee. Each of
the subsequent cards can be
presented by saying, "Here is the next one" or merely handing it
to the person without further
comment. The story told to each picture should be recorded
silently, without interruption,
until the person has finished with it. Immediately following the
completion of each story,
the examiner should inquire about any of the requested story
elements that are missing.
Depending on the content of the story, this inquiry could
include questions about what is
happening, what led up to this situation, what the people are
thinking and feeling, or what
the outcome will be.
If a story as first told is missing most of these elements, a
gentle reminder of the test
instructions and a request to tell the story again may be
preferable to asking each of the
individual questions concerning what has been omitted. If only
some of the requested
story elements are missing and individual inquiries about them
are answered with "Don't
know" or "Can't say," examinees as previously indicated should
be encouraged to "Use
your imagination and make something up." Should this
encouragement fail to generate

any further elaboration of the story element being inquired, the
examiner should desist
without pressing the person further. Putting excessive pressure
on test takers rarely generates
sufficient additional information to justify the distress it may
cause them, and doing so can
also generate negative attitudes that limit cooperation with the
testing procedures that
follow. To the contrary, because adequately informative TAT
protocols are so dependent
on individuals being willing to fantasize and share the products
of their fantasy, it can be
helpful to encourage them with occasional praise (e.g., "That's
an interesting story"). As
Murray (1943/1971, p. 4) said about a little praise from time to
time, "There is no better
stimulant to the imagination."
The examiner's inquiry questions should be limited to requests
for information about
missing story elements and should not include any other kinds
of discussion or questions.
For example, direct questions about the character's motives
(e.g., "Why are they doing
this?") should be avoided. Motivations that emerge in response
to such leading questions
lack the interpretive significance of motivations that people
report spontaneously, and
leading questions that go beyond the basic instructions may
encourage examinees to report
motivations and other kinds of information on subsequent cards
when they would not
otherwise have done so. Similarly, people should not be asked
to talk about any person or
object in a picture that they omitted from their story. This kind
of question can influence the

thoroughness with which individuals attend to subsequent
pictures and thereby dilute the
potential information value of total or selective attention to
certain parts of certain pictures.
Certain kinds of responses may at times call for the examiner to
interrupt an examinee
during the spontaneous phase of a TAT administration. Should
the person be telling a
rambling, extremely detailed story that contains all the requisite
story elements but seems
endless, the examiner should break in with something on the
order of, "That's fine; I think
I have the gist of that story; let's go on to the next picture." If a
rambling and detailed
story covers all the requisite elements except an outcome, the
interruption can be modified
to, "That's fine; just tell me how the story ends, and we'll go on
to the next one." Long
stories rarely provide more information than a briefer version
that covers all the required
story elements, and endless stories are seldom worth the time
and energy they consume in
a testing session.
A second kind of response that calls for interruption is a drawn-
out description of what
a person sees in the picture with little or no attention to
developing a story line with a
plot. In this circumstance, the appropriate intervention is to
remind the individual of the
instructions: "That's fine so far, but let me remind you that what
we need for this test is

for you to tell a story about each picture, with a beginning and
an end, and to say what the
people are thinking and feeling." A third problematic
circumstance arises when people say
that they can think of two or three different possibilities in a
picture and set out to relate
more than one story. Once more, to minimize any dilution of the
interpretive significance
of the data, examinees should not be allowed to tell alternative
stories. If they indicate that
such is their intent, they should be interrupted with words to
this effect: "For each of these
pictures I want you to tell just one story; if you have more than
one idea about a picture,
choose the one that you think is the best story for it."
Finally, the nature of the test makes it suitable for group as well
as individual assessments.
In group administration, the selected cards are shown on a
screen, the instructions are given
in written form as well as orally by the person conducting the
administration, and people are
asked to write out their stories for each picture. Although group
administration sacrifices
the opportunity for examiners to inquire about missing story
elements, this shortcoming

can be circumvented in large part by mentioning the story
requirements in the instructions.
Based on recommendations by Atkinson (1958, Appendix III),
who was a leading figure
in developing procedures for large sample research with the
TAT, the following written
instructions can be used for group administration:
You are going to see a series of pictures, and your task is to tell
a story that is suggested to you
by each picture. Try to imagine what is going on in each
picture. Then tell what the situation
is, what led up to the situation, what the people are thinking and
feeling, and what they will do.
In other words, write a complete story, with a plot and
characters. You will have four minutes
to write your story about each picture, and you will be told
when it is time to finish your story
and get ready for the next picture. There are no right or wrong
stories or kinds of stories, so
you may feel free to write whatever story is suggested to you
when you look at a picture.
Together with these written instructions, group test takers can
be given a sheet of paper
for each picture they will be shown, with the following four sets
of questions printed on
each sheet and followed by space for writing in an answer:
1. What is happening? Who are the persons?
2. What led up to this situation? What has happened in the past?

3. What is being thought and felt? What do the persons want?
4. What will happen? What will be done?
CODING
As noted, the cumbersome detail of the TAT coding scheme
originally proposed by Murray
(1943/1971) discouraged its widespread adoption in either
clinical practice or research.
The only comprehensive procedure for coding TAT stories that
has enjoyed even mild
popularity is an "Analysis Sheet" developed by Bellak (Bellak
& Abrams, 1997, chap. 4)
for use with his inspection method. Bellak's Analysis Sheet
calls for examiners to describe
briefly several features of each story, including its main theme,
the needs and intentions of
its characters, the kinds of affects that are being experienced,
and the nature of any conflicts
Turning to their thinking, people whose cognitive integrity is
intact typically produce
coherent TAT stories that are easy to follow and exemplify
logical reasoning. Disjointed
stories that do not flow smoothly, and confusing stories that
lack a sensible sequence,
give reason for concern that a person's thought processes may
be similarly scattered and
incoherent. Narratives characterized by strained and

circumstantial reasoning also raise
questions about the clarity of an individual's thought processes.
Illogical reasoning consists
of drawing definite conclusions on the basis of minimal or
irrelevant evidence and express-
ing these conclusions with absolute certainty when alternative
inferences would be equally
or more likely. The following examples illustrate what people
who are thinking illogically
might say in telling their TAT stories.
To Card 9BM (men lying on the ground): "These men are
probably a barbershop quartet,
because there are four of them, and the little guy would be the
tenor, because he's the smallest"
[being four in number is a highly circumstantial and far from
compelling basis for inferring
that the men are a vocal group, and there is no necessary or
exclusive relationship between
small stature and tenor voice].
To Card 12M (young man lying on couch with older man
leaning over him): "The boy has a tie
on, which means that he's a college student" [this is possible,
but far from being a necessary
meaning; perhaps the young man is wearing a tie because his
mother made him wear it, or
because he is going to get his picture taken today].
To Card 13MF (man standing in front of a woman lying in bed):
"I think she must be dead,
because she's lying down" [seeing the woman in this picture as
dead is not unusual, but
inferring certain death from lying down overlooks the

possibility that she might be sleeping or
resting].
APPLICATIONS
In common with the other assessment measures presented in this
Handbook, the TAT
derives its applications from the information it provides about
an individual's personality
characteristics. The TAT was described in the introduction to
this chapter as a performance-
based measure that, like the RIM, generates structural, thematic,
and behavioral sources of
data. As also noted, however, these data sources are not of
potentially equivalent significance
in TAT interpretation as they are in Rorschach interpretation.
Instead, the TAT, with few
exceptions, is most useful by virtue of what can be learned from
the thematic imagery about
a person's inner life.
Because the TAT functions best as a measure of underlying
needs, attitudes, conflicts,
and concerns, its primary application is in clinical work, mostly
in planning psychotherapy
and monitoring treatment progress. TAT findings may at times
provide some secondary
assistance in differential diagnosis, as illustrated in some of the
examples presented in
discussing story interpretation. Nevertheless, TAT stories are
more helpful in understanding
the possible sources and implications of adjustment difficulties
than in distinguishing
among categories of psychological disorder. For this reason,
forensic and organizational

applications of TAT assessment have also been limited,
although attention is paid in the
discussion that follows to the general acceptance of the TAT in
the professional community
and its potential utility in personnel selection. Other aspects of
TAT assessment that enhance
its utility are its suitability for group administration, its value in
cross-cultural research,
and its resistance to impression management.
Treatment Planning and Monitoring
The interpretive implications of TAT stories often prove helpful
in planning, conducting, and
evaluating the impact of psychological treatment. Especially in
evaluating people who are
seeking mental health care but are unable to recognize or
disinclined to reveal very much
about themselves, TAT findings typically go well beyond
interview data in illuminating
issues that should be addressed in psychotherapy. Inferences
based on TAT stories are
particularly likely to assist in answering the following four
central questions in treatment
planning:
1. What types of conflicts need to be resolved and what
concerns need to be eased for
the person to feel better and function more effectively?
2. What sorts of underlying attitudes does the person have

toward key figures in his or her
life, toward certain kinds of people in general, and toward
interpersonal relatedness?
3. What situations or events are likely to be distressing or
gratifying to the person, and
how does this person tend to cope with distress and respond to
gratification?
4. Which of these umesolved conflicts, underlying attitudes, or
distressing experiences
appears to be a root cause of the emotional or adjustment
problems that brought the
person into treatment?
By providing such information, TAT findings can help guide
therapists plan their treat-
ment strategies, anticipate obstacles to progress, and identify
adroit interventions. Having
such knowledge in advance about elements of a person's inner
life gives therapists a head
start in conducting psychotherapy. This advantage can be
especially valuable in short-term
or emergency therapy, when the time spent obtaining an in-
depth personality assessment
is more than compensated by the time saved with early
identification of the issues and
concerns that need attention.
Three research studies with the SCORS and DMM scales have
demonstrated the po-
tential utility of TAT stories for anticipating the course of
psychotherapy and monitor-
ing treatment progress. In one of these studies, S. J. Ackerman,
Hilsemoth, Clemence,
Weatherill, and Fowler (2000) found significant relationships

between the pretherapy
SCORS levels for affective quality of representations and
emotional investment in rela-
tionships and the continuation in treatment of 63 patients with a
personality disorder, as
measured by the number of sessions they attended.
Also working with the SCORS, Fowler et al. (2004) followed 77
seriously disturbed
patients receiving intensive psychotherapy in a residential
setting who were administered
the TAT prior to beginning treatment and a second time
approximately 16 months later.
Behavioral ratings indicated substantial improvement in the
condition of these patients,
and four of the SCORS scales showed corresponding significant
changes for the better
(Complexity of Representations, Understanding Social
Causality, Self-esteem, and Identity
and Coherence of the Self).
Cramer and Blatt (1990) were similarly successful in
demonstrating the utility of the
DMM in monitoring treatment change. In the Cramer and Blatt
study, 90 seriously disturbed
adults in residential treatment were tested on admission and
retested after an average of 15
months of therapy. Reduction of psychiatric symptoms in these
patients was accompanied
by significant decline in total use of defenses, as measured with
the DMM.

Diagnostic Evaluations
Contemporary practice in differential diagnosis distinguishes
among categories or dimen-
sions of disorder primarily on the basis of a person's manifest
symptomatology or behavior,
rather than the person's underlying attitudes and concerns (see
American Psychiatric As-
sociation, 2000). For this reason, what the TAT does best-
generate hypotheses about a
person's inner life-rarely plays a prominent role in clinical
diagnostic evaluations. Nev-
ertheless, certain thematic, structural, and behavioral features of
a TAT protocol may be
consistent with and reinforce diagnostic impressions based on
other sources of informa-
tion. Examples of this diagnostic relevance include suspicion-
laden story plots that suggest
paranoia, disjointed narratives that indicate disordered thinking,
and a slow rate of speech
that points to depressive lethargy. 2
In addition, research with the SCORS and DMM scales has
demonstrated that objectified
TAT findings can identify personality differences among
persons with different types of
problem. Patients with borderline personality disorder differ
significantly on some SCORS
variables from patients with major depressive disorder (Westen
et al., 1990), and SCORS
variables have been found to distinguish among patients with
borderline, narcissistic, and
antisocial personality disorders (S. J. Ackerman et al., 1999).
Young people who have been
physically or sexually abused display quite different
interpersonal attitudes and expectations

on the SCORS scales from the attitudes and expectations of
children and adolescents who
have not experienced abuse (Freedenfeld, Ornduff, & Kelsey,
1995; Kelly, 1999; Ornduff,
Freedenfeld, Kelsey, & Critelli, 1994; Ornduff & Kelsey, 1996).
Sandstrom and Cramer (2003) found that elementary
schoolchildren whose DMM scores
indicate use of identification are better adjusted
psychologically, as measured by parent and
self-report questionnaires, than children who rely on denial. In
particular, the children in
this study who showed identification reported less social
anxiety and depression than those
who showed denial, were less often described by their parents
as having behavior prob-
lems, and were more likely to perceive themselves as socially
and academically competent.
Adolescents with conduct disorder show less mature defenses on
the DMM than adoles-
cents with adjustment disorder, with the conduct disorder group
being more likely to use
denial than the adjustment disorder group, and less likely to use
identification (Cramer &
Kelly, 2004). Frequency of resorting to violence for resolution
of interpersonal conflicts, as
2Note should be taken of the recent publication of the
Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM Task Force, 2006),
which is intended to supplement the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual (DSM; American Psychiatric Association,
2000) as a guideline for differential diagnosis. The diagnostic
framework formulated in the PDM encourages
attention to each person's profile of mental functioning, which
includes "patterns of relating, comprehending, and
expressing feelings, coping with stress and anxiety, observing

one's own emotions and behaviors, and forming
moral judgments" (p. 2). Should such considerations come to
play a more formal part in differential diagnosis
than has traditionally been the case, TAT findings may become
increasingly relevant in determining diagnostic
classifications.
self-reported by a sample of college student men, has shown a
significant negative corre-
lation with DMM use of identification and a significant positive
correlation with use of
projection (Porcerelli, Cogan, Kamoo, & Letman, 2004).
These and similar TAT findings can help clinicians understand
psychological distur-
bances and appreciate the needs and concerns of people with
adjustment problems. How-
ever, these findings do not warrant using the SCORS, the DMM,
or any other TAT scale as
a sole or primary basis for diagnosing personality disorders or
identifying victims of abuse.
Differential diagnosis should always be an integrative process
drawing on information from
diverse sources, and for reasons already mentioned, the
information gleaned from TAT sto-
ries usually plays a minor role in this process. Moreover,
neither the TAT nor any other
performance-based measure of personality provides sufficient
basis for inferring whether a
person has been abused or had any other particular type of past
experience. The following
caution in this regard should always be kept in mind:

"Psychological assessment data are
considerably more dependable for describing what people are
like than for predicting how
they are likely to behave or postdicting what they are likely to
have done or experienced"
(Weiner, 2003, p. 335).
Forensic and Organizational Applications
Like the imagery in Rorschach responses, stories told to TAT
pictures are better suited
for generating hypotheses to be pursued than for establishing
the reasonable certainties
expected in the courtroom. On occasion, thematic
preoccupations may carry some weight
in documenting a state of mind relevant to a legal question, as
in a personal injury case in
which the TAT stories of a plaintiff seeking damages because of
a claimed posttraumatic
stress disorder reflect pervasive fears of being harmed or
damaged. By and large, however,
the psycholegal issues contended in the courtroom seldom hinge
on suppositions about a
litigant's or defendant's inner life. In terms of the criteria for
admissibility into evidence
discussed in the previous chapter, then, TAT testimony has
limited likelihood of being
helpful to judges and juries. As discussed in the final section of
this chapter, moreover,
TAT interpretation does not rest on a solid scientific basis,
except for conclusions based on
objectified scales for measuring specific personality
characteristics.
Nevertheless, forensic psychologists report using the TAT in
their practice, and TAT

assessment easily meets the general acceptance criterion for
admissibility into evidence.
Among forensic psychologists responding to surveys, over one-
third report using the TAT or
CAT in evaluations of children involved in custody disputes,
and 24% to 29% in evaluating
adults in these cases, with smaller numbers using the TAT in
evaluations of personal injury
(9%), criminal responsibility (8%), and competency to stand
trial (5%; M. J. Ackerman &
Ackerman, 1997; Boccaccini & Brodsky, 1999; Borum &
Grisso, 1995; Quinnell & Bow,
2001). In a more recent survey of forensic psychologists by
Archer, Buffington-Vollum,
Stredny, and Handel (2006), 29% reported using the TAT for
various purposes in their case
evaluations. In clinical settings, the TAT has consistently been
among the four or five most
frequently used tests, and it has been the third most frequently
used personality assessment
method, following the MMPI and RIM with adults and the RIM
and sentence completion
tests with adolescents (Archer & Newsom, 2000; Camara,
Nathan, & Puente, 2000; Hogan,
2005; Moretti & Rossini, 2004).
A majority (62%) of internship training directors report a
preference for their incoming
trainees to have had prior TAT coursework or at least a good
working knowledge of the
instrument (Clemence & Handler, 2001 ). Over the years, the
TAT has been surpassed only

by the MMPI and the RIM in the volume of published
personality assessment research it has
generated (Butcher & Rouse, 1996). As judged from its
widespread use, its endorsement
as a method that clinicians should learn, and the extensive body
of literature devoted to it,
TAT assessment appears clearly to have achieved general
acceptance in the professional
community.
With respect to potential applications of the TAT in personnel
selection, two meta-
analytic studies have identified substantial relationships
between McClelland's n-Ach scale
and achievement-related outcomes. In one of these meta-
analyses, Spangler (1992) found a
statistically significant average affect size for n-Ach in
predicting such outcomes as income
earned, occupational success, sales success, job performance,
and participation in and lead-
ership of community organizations. This TAT measure of
achievement motivation showed
higher correlations with outcome criteria in these studies than
self-report questionnaire
measures of motivation to achieve.
In the other meta-analysis, Collins, Hang es, and Locke (2004)
examined 41 studies
of need for achievement among persons described as
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship in
these studies consisted of being a manager responsible for
making decisions in the business
world or a founder of a business with responsibility for
undertaking a new venture. The
n-Ach scale in these studies was significantly correlated with

choosing an entrepreneurial
career and performing well in it, and Collins et al. concluded,
"Achievement motivation
may be particularly potent at differentiating between successful
and unsuccessful groups
of entrepreneurs" (p. 111). Hence there is reason to expect that
TAT assessment may be
helpful in identifying individuals who are likely to be adept at
recognizing and exploiting
entrepreneurial opportunities in the marketplace.
Group Administration, Cross-Cultural Relevance, and
Resistance
to Impression Management
As mentioned, three other aspects of the TAT are likely to
enhance its applications for
various purposes. First, the suitability of the TAT for group
administration facilitates large-
scale data collection for research purposes and creates
possibilities for using the instrument
as a screening device in applied settings.
Second, since early in its history, the TAT has been used as a
clinical and research
instrument in many different countries and has proved
particularly valuable in studying
cultural change and cross-cultural differences in personality
characteristics. Contributions
by Dana (1999) and Ephraim (2000) provide overviews of these
international applications
of the TAT, and the particular sensitivity of TAT stories to
cultural influences is elaborated
by Ritzier (2004) and by Hofer and Chasiotis (2004).

Third, as a performance-based measure, the TAT is somewhat
resistant to impression
management. People who choose to conceal their inner life by
telling brief and unelaborated
stories can easily defeat the purpose of the examination. In so
doing, however, they make
it obvious that they are delivering a guarded protocol that
reveals very little about them,
other than the fact of their concealment. For examinees who are
being reasonably open
and cooperative, the ambiguity of the task and their limited
awareness of what their stories
might signify make it difficult for them to convey any
intentionally misleading impression
of their attitudes and concerns.
Nevertheless, telling stories is a more reality-based enterprise
than saying what inkblots
might be, and for this reason, the TAT is probably not as
resistant as the RIM to impression
management. Moreover, research reported in the 1960s and
1970s showed that college
students could modify the TAT stories they told after being
instructed to respond in certain
ways ( e.g., as an aggressive and hostile person). Schretlen (
1997) has concluded from these
early studies that they "clearly demonstrate the fakability of the
TAT" (p. 281).

To take issue with Schretlen's conclusion, however, the ability
of volunteer research
participants to shape their TAT stories according to certain
instructions may have little
bearing on whether people being examined for clinical purposes
can successfully manage
the impression they give on this measure. Moreover, it is
reasonable to hypothesize that
experienced examiners, working with the benefit of case history
information and data from
other tests as well, would have little difficulty identifying in
TAT stories the inconsistencies
and exaggerations that assist in detecting malingering.
However, the sensitivity of clinicians
to attempted impression management in real-world TAT
assessment has not yet been put to
adequate empirical test.
PSYCHOMETRIC FOUNDATIONS
The nature of the TAT and the ways in which it has most
commonly been used have
made it difficult to determine its psychometric properties. Aside
from a widely used and
fairly standard set of instructions based on Murray's original
guidelines for administration,
research and practice with the TAT has been largely
unsystematic. Certain sets of cards have
been recommended by various authorities on the test, but there
has been little consistency
with respect to which cards are used and in what sequence they
are shown (Keiser & Prather,
1990). Moreover, the primarily qualitative approach that
typifies TAT interpretation in
clinical practice does not yield the quantitative data that
facilitate estimating the reliability

of an assessment instrument, determining its validity for various
purposes, and developing
numerical reference norms.
This lack of systematization and the resultant shortfall in
traditional psychometric veri-
fication have fueled a long history of controversy between
critics who have questioned the
propriety of using the TAT in clinical practice and proponents
who have endorsed the value
of the instrument and refuted criticisms of its use.
Commentaries by Conklin and Westen
(2001), Cramer (1999), Garb (1998), Hibbard (2003), Karon
(2000), and Lilienfeld, Wood,
and Garb (2000) provide contemporary summaries of these
opposing views. Without re-
hashing this debate, and with the psychometric shortcomings of
traditional TAT assessment
having already been noted, the following discussion calls
attention to four considerations
bearing on how and why this instrument can be used effectively
for certain purposes.
First, criticisms of the validity of the TAT have frequently been
based on low correlations
between impressions gleaned from TAT stories and either
clinical diagnosis or self-report
data. However, correlations with clinical diagnoses and self-
report measures are conceptu-
ally irrelevant to the validity of TAT for its intended purposes,
and criticisms based on such
correlations accordingly lack solid basis. The TAT was
designed to explore the personal

experience and underlying motives of people, not to facilitate a
differential diagnosis based
primarily on manifest symptomatology (which is the basis of
psychiatric classification in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [DSM-IV-TR]; American
Psychiatric Association,
2000). Should some TAT scales show an association with
particular psychological disor-
ders, as they in the SCORS and DMM research, the test may
help identify personality
characteristics associated with these disorders. Failure to
accomplish differential diagnosis,
although important to recognize as a limitation of TAT
applications, does not invalidate use
of the instrument for its primary intended purposes.
As for correlations with self-report measures, there is little to
gain from attempting
to validate performance-based personality tests against self-
report questionnaires, or vice
. versa for that matter. These are two types of test that are
constructed differently, ask for
different kinds of responses, provide different amounts of
structure, and tap different levels
of self-awareness, as discussed in concluding Chapter 1. Hence
they may at times yield
different results when measuring similar constructs, and in such
instances they are more
likely to complement than to contradict each other (see pp. 24-
26; see also Weiner, 2005).
Meyer et al. (2001) drew the following conclusions in this

regard from a detailed review of
evidence and issues in psychological testing:
Distinct assessment methods provide unique information ....
Any single assessment method
provides a partial or incomplete representation of the
characteristics it intends to mea-
sure.... Cross-method correlations cannot reveal ... how good a
test is in any specific
sense.... Psychologists should anticipate disagreements when
similarly named scales are com-
pared across diverse assessment methods. (p. 145)
Because both self-report and performance-based personality
tests are inferential mea-
sures, furthermore, substantial correlations between them
usually have only modest impli-
cations for their criterion validity. Two tests that correlate
perfectly with each other can be
equally invalid, with no significant relationship to any
meaningful criterion. Compelling
evidence of criterion validity emerges when personality test
scores correlate not with each
other, but with external (nontest) variables consisting of what
people are like and how they
are observed to behave.
Second, the traditionally qualitative TAT methods have been
supplemented with quantita-
tive scales that are readily accessible to psychometric
verification. The previously mentioned
research with the SCORS, DMM, and n-Ach scoring
demonstrates that TAT assessment
can be objectified to yield valid and reliable scales for
measuring dimensions of personal-
ity functioning. Additional research has demonstrated the

internal consistency of SCORS
and its validity in identifying developmental differences in the
interpersonal capacities of
children (e.g., Hibbard, Mitchell, & Porcerelli, 2001; Niec &
Russ, 2002).
The DMM has been validated as a measure of maturity level in
children and adolescents,
of developmental level of maturity in college students, and of
long-term personality change
and stability in adults (Cramer, 2003; Hibbard & Porcerelli,
1998; Porcerelli, Thomas,
Hibbard, & Cogan, 1998). Support for the validity of these
scales is acknowledged by
critics as well as proponents of the TAT, although in the former
case with the qualification
that these "promising TAT scoring systems ... are not yet
appropriate for routine clinical
use" (Lilienfeld et al., 2000, p. 46). Even if this qualification is
warranted, the point has
been made that TAT assessment has the potential to generate
valid and reliable findings.
Research with other picture-story measures, notably the RATC
and the TEMAS, has
provided additional evidence of the potential psychometric
soundness of assessing person-
ality with this method. As reviewed by Weiner and Kuehnle
(1998), quantitative scores
generated by both measures have valid and meaningful
correlates and have shown adequate
levels of interscorer agreement and either internal consistency

or retest stability.
Third, not having systematically gathered quantitative
normative data to guide TAT
interpretations does not mean that the instrument lacks
reference points. As reviewed in
the section of this chapter on card pull, cumulative clinical
experience has established
expectations concerning the types of stories commonly elicited
by each of the TAT cards.
Hence examiners are not in the position of inventing a new test
each time they use the TAT.
Instead, similarities and differences between a person's stories
and common expectations
can and should play a prominent role in the interpretive process,
as they did in many of the
examples presented in this chapter.
The fourth consideration pertains to the primary purpose of
TAT assessment, which
is to explore an individual's personal experience and generate
hypotheses concerning the
individual's underlying needs, attitudes, conflicts, and concerns.
The value of the TAT
resides in generating hypotheses that expand understanding of a
person's inner life. If
a TAT story suggests three alternative self-perceptions or
sources of anxiety, and only
one of these alternatives finds confirmation when other data
sources are examined, then
the test has done its job in useful fashion. It is not invalidated
because two-thirds of the
suggested alternatives in this instance proved incorrect. This is
the nature of working
with a primarily qualitative assessment instrument, which shows
its worth, not through

quantitative psychometric verification, but by clinicians finding
it helpful in understanding
and treating people who seek their services. Psychologists who
may be concerned that this
qualitative perspective detracts from the scientific status of
assessment psychology should
keep in mind that generating hypotheses is just as much a part
of science as confirming
hypotheses.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. C. (1997). Custody
evaluations in practice: A survey of experienced
professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology, 28, 137-145.
Ackerman, S. J., Clemence, A. J., Weatherill, R., & Hilsenroth,
M. J. (1999). Use of the TAT in the
assessment of DSM-IV Custer B personality disorders. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 73,
422-448.
Ackerman, S. J., Hilsenroth, M. J., Clemence, A. J., Weatherill,
R., & Fowler, J. C. (2000). The
effect of social cognition and object representation on
psychotherapy continuation. Bulletin of
the Menninger Clinic, 64, 386-408.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, J. W. (1988). Henry Murray's early career: A
psychobiographical exploration. Journal of
Personality, 56, 139-171.

Anderson, J. W. (1999). Henry A. Murray and the creation of
the Thematic Apperception Test. In
L. Gieser & M. I. Stein (Eds.), Evocative images: The Thematic
Apperception Test and the art
ofprojection (pp. 23-38). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., &
Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of
psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists.
Journal ofPersonality Assessment,
87, 84-94.
Archer, R. P., & Newsom, C. R. (2000). Psychological test
usage with adolescent clients: Survey
update. Assessment, 7, 227-235.
Atkinson, J. W. (Ed.). (1958). Motives in fantasy, action, and
society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Avila-Espada, A. (2000). Objective scoring for the TAT. In R.
H. Dana (Ed.), Handbook of cross-
cultural and multicultural personality assessment (pp. 465-480).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barenbaum, N. R., & Winter, D. G. (2003). Personality. In I. B.
Weiner (Editor-in-Chief) & D. K.
Freedheim (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 1. History
of psychology (pp. 177-302).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bellak, L. (1947). A guide to the interpretation of the Thematic

Apperception Test. New York:
Psychological Corporation.
Bellak, L. (1954). The Thematic Apperception Test and the
Children's Apperception Test in clinical
use. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Bellak, L. (1975). The TAT, CAT, and SAT in clinical use ( 3rd
ed.). New York: Grune & Stratton.
Bellak, L. (1999). My perceptions of the Thematic Apperception
Test in psychodiagnosis and psy-
chotherapy. In L. Gieser & M. I. Stein (Eds.), Evocative
images; The Thematic Apperception Test
and the art ofprojection (pp. 133-141). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Bellak, L., & Abrams, D. M. (1997). The TAT, CAT, and SAT
in clinical use ( 6th ed.). Boston: Allyn
&Bacon.
Blankenship, V., Vega, C. M., Ramos, E., Romero, K., Warren,
K., Keenan, K., et al. (2006). Using the
multifaceted Rasch model to improve the TAT/PSE measure of
need for achievement. Journal
ofPersonality Assessment, 86, 100-114.
Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Diagnostic test
usage by forensic psychologists in
emotional injury cases. Professional Psychology, 30, 253-259.
Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1995). Psychological test use in
criminal forensic evaluations. Professional
Psychology, 26, 465-473.
Busch, F. (1995). The ego at the center of clinical technique.

Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Butcher, J. N., & Rouse, S. V. (1996). Personality: Individual
differences and clinical assessment.
Annual Review ofPsychology, 47, 87-111.
Camara, W., Nathan, J., & Puente, A. (2000). Psychological test
usage: Implications in professional
use. Professional Psychology, 31, 141-154.
Clemence, A. J., & Handler, L. (2001). Psychological
assessment on internship: A survey of training
directors and their expectations for students. Journal
Collins, C. J., Ranges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The
relationship of achievement motivation to
entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance,
17, 95-117.
Conklin, A., & Westen, D. (2001). Thematic apperception test.
In W. I. Dorfman & M. Hersen (Eds.),
Understanding psychological assessment (pp. 107-133).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic.
Costantino, G., & Malgady, R. G. (1999). The Tell-Me-A-Story
Test: A multicultural offspring
of the Thematic Apperception Test. In L. Gieser & M. I. Stein
(Eds.), Evocative images: The
Thematic Apperception Test and the art ofprojection (pp. 177-
190). Washington, DC: American
Costantino, G., Malgady, R. G., & Rogler, L. H. (1998).
Technical manual: TEMAS Thematic

Apperception Test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological
Services.
Costantino, G., Malgady, R. G., Rogler, L. H., & Tosi, E. C.
(1998). Discriminant analysis of clinical
outpatients and public school children by TEMAS: A thematic
apperception test for Hispanics
and Blacks. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 52, 670-678.
Cramer, P. (1991). The development of defense mechanisms:
Theory, research and assessment. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Cramer, P. (1996). Storytelling, narrative, and the Thematic
Apperception Test. New York: Guilford
Press.
Cramer, P. (1999). Future directions for the Thematic
Apperception Test. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 72, 74-92.
Cramer, P. (2003). Personality change in later adulthood is
predicted by defense mechanism use in
early adulthood. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 37, 76-104.
Cramer, P. (2006). Protecting the self: Defense mechanisms in
action. New York: Guilford
Press.
Cramer, P., & Blatt, S. J. (1990). Use of the TAT to measure
change in defense mechanisms following
intensive psychotherapy. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 54,

236-251.
Cramer, P., & Kelly, F. D. (2004). Adolescent conduct disorder
and adjustment reaction. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Diseases, 192, 139-145.
Dana, R. H. (1999). Cross-cultural-multicultural use of the
Thematic Apperception Test. In L.
Gieger & M. I. Stein (Eds.), Evocative images: The Thematic
Apperception Test and the art of
projection (pp. 177-190). Washington, DC: American
Dana, R. H. (2006). TEMAS among the Europeans: Different,
complementary, and provocative.
South African Rorschach Journal, 3, 17-28.
Ephraim, D. (2000). A psychocultural approach to TAT scoring
and interpretation. In R.H. Dana (Ed.),
Handbook of cross-cultural and multicultural personality
assessment (pp. 427-446). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Eron,L. D. (1950). A normative study of the Thematic
Apperception Test.Psychological Monographs,
64( Whole No. 315).
Eron, L. D. (1953). Responses of women to the Thematic
Apperception Test. Journal of Consulting
Fowler, J. C., Ackerman, S. J., Speanburg, S., Bailey, A.,
Blagys, M., & Conklin, A. C. (2004).
Personality and symptom change in treatment refractory
inpatients: Evaluation of the phase
model of change using Rorschach TAT and DSM-IV Axis V.

83, 306-322.
Freedenfeld, R. N., Orndoff, S. R., & Kelsey, R. M. (1995).
Object relations and physical abuse: A
TAT analysis. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 64, 552-568.
Freud, S. (1957). "Wild" psychoanalysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. &
Trans.), The standard edition of
the works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 11, pp. 221-227). London:
Hogarth Press. (Original work
published 1910)
Garb, H. N. (1998). Recommendations for training in the use of
the Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT). Professional Psychology, 29, 621-622.
Hall, C. S., Lindzey, G., & Campbell, J. B. (1998). Theori es of
personality (4th ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Handler, L. (2001). Assessment of men: Personality assessment
goes to war by the Office of Strategic
Services Assessment staff. Journal ofPersonality Assessment,
76, 558-578.
Henry, W. E. (1956). The analysis offantasy: The thematic
apperception technique in the study of
personality. New York: Wiley.
Hibbard, S. (2003). A critique of Lilienfeld et al. 's (2000) "The
scientific status of projective tech-
niques." Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 80, 260-271.
Hibbard, S., Mitchell, D., & Porcerelli, J. (2001). Internal
consistency of the Object Relations and

Social Cognition scales for the Thematic Apperception Test.
77, 408-419.
Hibbard, S., & Porcerelli, J. (1998). Further validation for the
Cramer Defense Mechanisms manual.
Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 70, 460-483.
Hofer, J., & Chasiotis, A. (2004). Methodological
considerations of applying a TAT-type picture-story
test in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Hogan, T. P. (2005). 50 widely used psychological tests. In G.
P. Koocher, J.C. Norcross, & S. S. Hill
III (Eds.), Psychologists' desk reference ( 2nd ed., pp. 101-104).
New York: Oxford University
Press.
Holmstrom, R. W., Silber, D. E., & Karp, S. A. (1990).
Development of the Apperceptive Personality
Test. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 54, 252-264.
Huprich, S. K., & Greenberg, R. P. (2003). Advances in the
assessment of object relations in the
1990s. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 665-698.
Jenkins, S. R. (in press). Handbook ofclinical scoring systems
for Thematic Apperception techniques.
Karon, B. P. (2000). The clinical interpretation of the Thematic

Apperception Test, Rorschach,
and other clinical data: A reexamination of statistical versus
clinical prediction. Professional
Karp, S. A., Holstrom, R. W., & Silber, D. E. (1989). Manual
for the Apperceptive Personality Test
(APT). Orland Park, IL: International Diagnostic Services.
Keiser, R. E., & Prather, E. N. (1990). What is the TAT? A
review of ten years of research. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 55, 800-803.
Kelly, F. D. (1999). The psychological assessment ofabused and
traumatized children. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kelly, F. D. (2007). The clinical application of the Social
Cognition and Object Relations scale with
children and adolescents. In S. R. Smith & L. Handler (Eds.),
The clinical assessment ofchildren
and adolescents (pp. 169-182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lanagan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2006). The Thematic
Apperception Test: Toward a standard measure
of the big three motives. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 87,
277-291.
Lilienfeld, S. 0., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The
scientific status of projective techniques.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 27-66.
McArthur, D. S., & Roberts, G. E. (1990). Roberts
Apperception Test for Children manual. Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

McClelland, D. C. (1999). How the test lives on: Extensions of
the Thematic Apperception Test
approach. In L. Gieser & M. I. Stein (Eds.), Evocative images:
The Thematic Apperception Test
and the art ofprojection (pp. 163-175). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E.
L. (1953). The achievement motive.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McClelland, D. C., Clark, R. A., Roby, T. B., & Atkinson, J. W.
(1958). The effect of the need for
achievement on thematic apperception. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.),
Motives in fantasy, action, and
society (pp. 64-82). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Meyer, J. G. (2004). The reliability and validity of the
Rorschach and Thematic Apperception
Test (TAT) compared to other psychological and medical
procedures: An analysis of system-
atically gathered evidence. In M. Hersen (Editor-in-Chief), M.
Hilsenroth, & D. Segal (Vol.
Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment:
Vol. 2. Personality assessment
(pp. 315-342). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Meyer, J. G., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K.
L., Dies, R. R., et al. (2001).
Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review
of evidence and issues. American
Psychologist, 56, 128-165.
Moretti, R. J., & Rossini, E. D. (2004). The Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT). In M. Hersen (Editor-
in-Chief), M. J. Hilsenroth, & D. L. Segal (Vol. Eds.),

Comprehensive handbook ofpsychological
assessment: Vol. 2. Personality assessment (pp. 356-371).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. (1935). A method for
investigating fantasies: The Thematic Apper-
ception Test. Archives ofNeurology and Psychiatry, 34, 289-
306.
Morgan, W. G. (1995). Origin and history of Thematic
Apperception Test images. Journal ofPerson-
ality Assessment, 65, 237-254.
Morgan, W. G. (2002). Origin and history of the earliest
Thematic Apperception Test pictures. Journal
Morgan, W. G. (2003). Origin and history of the "Series B" and
"Series C" TAT pictures. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 81, 133-148.
Murray, H. A. ( 1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical
and experimental study offifty men of
college age. New York: Oxford University Press.
Murray, H. A. (1940). What should psychologists do about
psychoanalysis? Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 35, 150--175.
Murray, H. A. (1971). Thematic Apperception Test: Manual.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. (Original work published 1943)

Murstein, B. I. (1963). Theory and research in projective
techniques (Emphasizing the TAT). New
York: Wiley.
Niec, L. N., & Russ, S. W. (2002). Children's internal
representations, empathy, and fantasy play: A
validity study of the SCORS-Q. Psychological Assessment, 14,
331-338.
Office of Strategic Services Assessment Staff. (1948).
Assessment of men. New York: Rinehart.
Ornduff, S. R., Freedendeld, R. N., Kelsey, R. M., & Critelli , J.
W. ( 1994 ). Object relations of sexually
abused female subjects: A TAT analysis. Journal of Personality
Ornduff, S. R., & Kelsey, R. M. (1996). Object relations of
sexually and physically abused female
children: A TAT analysis. Journal ofPersonality Assessment,
66, 91-105.
Pang, J. S., & Schultheiss, 0. C. (2005). Assessing implicit
motives in U.S. college students effects
of picture type and position, gender, and ethnicity, and cross -
cultural comparisons. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 85, 280--294.
PDM Task Force. (2006). Psychodynamic diagnostic manual.
Silver Spring, MD: Alliance of Psy-
choanalytic Organizations.
Peters, E. J., Hilsenroth, M. J., Eudell-Simmons, E. M., Blagys,
M. D., & Handler, L. (2006).
Reliability and validity of the Social Cognition and Object

Relations scale in clinical use.
Psychotherapy Research, 16, 617--616.
Porcerelli, J. H., Cogan, R., Kamoo, R., & Leitman, W. (2004).
Defense mechanisms and self-reported
violence toward partners and strangers. Journal ofPersonality
Porcerelli, J. H., & Hibbard, S. (2004). Projective assessment of
defense mechanisms. In M.
Hersen (Editor-in-Chief), M. J. Hilsenroth, & D. L. Segal (Vol.
Eds.), Comprehensive hand-
book ofpsychological assessment: Vol. 2. Personality
assessment (pp. 466-475). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Porcerelli, J. H., Thomas, S., Hibbard, S., & Cogan, R. (1998).
Defense mechanism development in
children, adolescents, and late adolescents. Journal of
Prince, M. (1906). The dissociation of a personality: A
biographical study in abnormal psychology.
New York: Longmans.
Quinnell, F. A., & Bow, J. N. (2001). Psychological tests used
in child custody evaluations. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 19, 491-501.
Ritzier, B. A. (2004). Cultural applications of the Rorschach,
Apperception Tests, and figure drawings.
In M. Hersen (Editor-in-Chief), M. J. Hilsenroth, & D. L. Segal
(Vol. Eds.), Comprehensive
handbook ofpsychological assessment: Vol. 2. Personality
assessment (pp. 573-585). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.

Ritzier, B. A., Sharkey, K. J., & Chudy, J. F. (1980). A
comprehensive projective alternative to the
TAT. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 44, 358-362.
Roberts, G. E. (2006). Roberts-2 manual. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Robinson, F. G. (1992). Love's story told: A life of Henry A.
Murray. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Sandstrom, M. J., & Cramer, P. (2003). Defense mechanisms
and psychological adjustment in child-
hood. Journal ofNervous and Mental Diseases, 191, 487-495.
Schretlen, D. J. (1997). Dissimulation on the Rorschach and
other projective measures. In R. Rogers
(Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (2nd
ed., pp. 208-222). New York:
Guilford Press.
Shakespeare, W. (194 7). The tragedy ofHamlet, Prince
ofDenmark. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press. (Original work published 1604)
Sharkey, K. J., & Ritzler, B. A. (1985). Comparing diagnostic
validity of the TAT and a new Picture
Projective Test. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 49, 406-412.
Shneidman, E. S. (1951). Thematic test analysis. New York:
Grune & Stratton.

Shneidman, E. S. (1965). Projective techniques. In B. B.
Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of clinical psy-
chology (pp. 498-521). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Smith, C. P. (Ed.). (1992). Motivation and personality:
Handbook of thematic content analysis. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT
measures of need for achievement: Two
meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140---154.
Stein, M. I. (1948). The Thematic Apperception Test. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Stein, M. I., & Gieser, L. (1999). The zeitgeists and events
surrounding the birth of the Thematic
Apperception Test. In L. Gieser & M. I. Stein (Eds.), Evocative
images: The Thematic Apper-
ception Test and the art of projection (pp. 15-22). Washington,
DC: American Psychological
Association.
Stricker, G., & Gooen-Piels, J. (2004). Projective assessment of
object relations. In M. Hersen
(Editor-in-Chief), M. J. Hilsenroth, & D. L. Segal (Vol. Eds.),
Comprehensive handbook
of psychological assessment: Vol. 2. Personality assessment
(pp. 449-465). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Teglasi, H. (2001). Essentials ofTAT and other storytelling
techniques assessment. New York: Wiley.
Tomkins, S. S. (1947). The Thematic Apperception Test: The

theory and technique of interpretation.
New York: Grune & Stratton.
Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Vaillant, G. E. (1994). Ego mechanisms of defense and
personality psychopathology. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 105, 44--50.
Vane, J. R. (1981). The Thematic Apperception Test: A review.
Clinical Psychology Review, 1,
319--336.
Weiner, I. B. (2003). Prediction and postdiction in clinical
decision making. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, JO, 335-338.
Weiner, I. B. (2005). Integrative personality assessment with
self-report and performance-based
measures. In S. Strack (Ed.), Handbook of personology and
psychopathology (pp. 317-331).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Weiner, I. B., & Kuehnle, K. (1998). Projective assessment of
children and adolescents. In A.
S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive clinical
psychology: Vol. 4. Assessment
(pp. 432-458). New York: Pergamon Press.
Westen, D. (1991). Social cognition and object relations.
Psychological Bulletin, 109, 429-455.
Westen, D. (1995). Social Cognition and Object Relations
Scale: Q-Sort for Projective Stories
(SCORS-Q). Unpublished manuscript, Harvard Medical School,

Cambridge, MA.
Westen, D., Lohr, N. E., Silk, K., Gold, L., & Kerber, K.
(1990). Object relations and social cog-
nition in borderlines, major depressives, and normals: A
Thematic Apperception Test analysis.
Psychological Assessment, 2, 355-364.
Westen, D., Lohr, N. E., Silk, K., Kerber, K., & Goodrich, S.
(1989). Object relations and social
cognition TAT scoring manual (4th ed.). Unpublished
manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Winter, D. G. (1998). Toward a science of personality
psychology: David McClelland's development
of empirically derived TAT measures. History ofPsychology, 1,
130--153.
Winter, D. G. (1999). Linking personality and "scientific"
psychology: The development of empiri-
cally derived Thematic Apperception Test measures. In L.
Gieser & M. I. Stein (Eds.), Evocative
images: The Thematic Apperception Test and the art
ofprojection (pp. 106-124). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Zubin, J., Eron, L. D., & Schumer, F. (1965). An experimental
approach to projective techniques.
New York: Wiley.
a-425-435a-467-480

Chapter 11
RORSCHACH INKBLOT METHOD
The preceding five chapters have presented the most commonly
used self-report inventories
for assessing personality functioning. As noted in Chapter 1,
inventories of this kind differ
in several respects from performance-based personality
measures. Self-report inventories
provide direct assessments of personality characteristics in
which people are asked to
describe themselves by indicating whether certain statements
apply to them. Performance-
based measures are an indirect approach in which personality
characteristics are inferred
from the way people respond to various standardized tasks.
Self-report and performance-
based methods both bring advantages and limitations to the
assessment process, as discussed
in Chapters 1 and 2, and there are many reasons personality
assessments should ordinarily
be conducted with a multifaceted test battery that includes both
kinds of measures (see
pp. 13-15 and 22-26).
This and the following three chapters address the most widely
used performance-based
measures of personality functioning: the Rorschach Inkblot
Method (RIM), the Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT), figure drawing methods, and sentence
completion methods. These
and other performance-based personality measures have

traditionally been referred to as
projective tests and are still commonly labeled this way. As
pointed out in concluding
Chapter 1, however, "projective" is not an apt categorization of
these measures, and con-
temporary assessment psychologists prefer more accurate
descriptive labels for them such
as performance-based.
NATURE OF THE RORSCHACH INKBLOT METHOD
The Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) consists of 10 inkblots
printed individually on 6 %"
by 9 %" cards. Five of these blots are printed in shades of gray
and black (Cards I and
IV-VII); two of the blots are in shades of red, gray, and black
(Cards II and III); and the
remaining three blots are in shades of various pastel colors
(Cards VIII-X). In what is
called the Response Phase of a Rorschach examination, people
are shown the cards one
at a time and asked to say what they see in them. In the
subsequent Inquiry Phase of the
examination, persons being examined are asked to indicate
where in the blots they saw each
of the percepts they reported and what made those percepts look
the way they did.
These procedures yield three sources of data. First, the manner
in which people structure
their responses identifies how they are likely to structure other
situations in their lives.
People who base most of their responses on the overall
appearance of the inkblots and pay
little attention to separate parts of them are likely to be
individuals who tend to form global

impressions of situations and ignore or overlook details of these
situations. Conversely,
345
people who base most of their responses on parts of the blots
and seldom make use of
an entire blot are often people who become preoccupied with
the details of situations
and fail to grasp their overall significance-as in "not being able
to see the forest for the
trees." As another example of response structure, people who
report seeing objects that are
shaped similarly to the part of the blot where they are seeing
them are likely in general
to perceive people and events accurately, and hence to show
adequate reality testing. By
contrast, people who give numerous perceptually inaccurate
responses that do not resemble
the shapes of the blots are prone in general to form distorted
impressions of what they see,
and hence to show impaired reality testing.
As a second source of data, Rorschach responses frequently
contain content themes
that provide clues to a person's underlying needs, attitudes, and
concerns. People who
consistently describe human figures they see in the inkblots as
being angry, carrying
weapons, or fighting with each other may harbor concerns that
other people are potentially
dangerous to them, or they may view interpersonal relationships

as typified by competition
and strife. Conversely, a thematic emphasis on people described
as friendly, as carrying
a peace offering, or as helping each other in a shared endeavor
probably reveals a sense
of safety in interpersonal relationships and an expectation that
people will interact in
collaborative ways. In similar fashion, recurrent descriptions of
people, animals, or objects
seen in the blots as being damaged or dysfunctional (e.g., "a
decrepit old person"; "a
wounded bug"; "a piece of machinery that's rusting away") may
reflect personal concerns
about being injured or defective in some way, or about being
vulnerable to becoming injured
or defective.
The third source of data in a Rorschach examination consists of
the manner in which
individuals conduct themselves and relate to the examiner,
which provides behavioral indi-
cations of how they are likely to deal with task-oriented and
interpersonal situations. Some
of the behavioral data that emerge during a Rorschach
examination resemble observa-
tions that clinicians can make whenever they are conducting
interview or test assessments.
Whether people being assessed seem deferential or antagonistic
toward the examiner may
say something about their attitudes toward authority. Whether
they appear relaxed or ner-
vous may say something about how self-confident and self-
assured they are and about how
they generally respond to being evaluated.
The RIM also provides some test-specific behavioral data in the

form of how people
handle the cards and how they frame their responses. Do they
carefully hand each card back
to the examiner when they are finished responding to it, or do
they carelessly toss the card
on the desk? Do they give definite responses and take
responsibility for them (as in "This
one looks to me like a bat"), or do they disavow responsibility
and avoid commitment (as
in "It really doesn't look like anything to me, but if I have to
say something, I'd say it might
look something like a bat")?
To summarize this instrument, then, the RIM involves each of
the following three tasks:
1. A perceptual task yielding structural information that helps to
identify personality
states and traits
2. An associational task generating content themes that contain
clues to a person's
underlying needs and attitudes
3. A behavioral task that provides a representative sample of an
individual's orientation
to problem-solving and interpersonal situations
Rorschach Inkblot Method 347
In parallel to these three test characteristics, Rorschach
assessment measures personality
functioning because the way people go about seeing things in
the inkblots reflects how they

look at their world and how they customarily make decisions
and deal with events. What
they see in the inkblots provides a window into their inner life
and the contents of their
mind, and how they conduct themselves during the examination
provides information about
how they usually respond to people and to external demands.
By integrating these structural, thematic, and behavioral
features of the data, Rorschach
clinicians can generate comprehensive personality descriptions
of the people they examine.
These descriptions typically address adaptive strengths and
weaknesses in how people
manage stress, how they attend to and perceive their
surroundings, how they form concepts
and ideas, how they experience and express feelings, how they
view themselves, and how
they relate to other people. Later sections of this chapter
elaborate the codification, scoring,
and interpretation of Rorschach responses and delineate how
Rorschach-based descriptions
of personality characteristics facilitate numerous applications of
the instrument. As a further
introduction to these topics and to the psychometric features of
the RIM, the next two
sections of the chapter review the history of Rorschach
assessment and standard procedures
for administering the instrument.
HISTORY
Of the personality assessment instruments discussed in this text,
the Rorschach Inkblot
Method has the longest and most interesting history because it

was shaped by diverse
personal experiences and life events. The inkblot method first
took systematic form in the
mind of Hermann Rorschach, a Swiss psychiatrist who lived
only 37 years, from 1885
to 1922. As a youth, Rorschach had been exposed to inkblots in
the form of a popular
parlor game in tum-of-the-century Europe called
Klecksographie. Klecks is the German
word for "blot," and the Klecksographie game translates loosely
into English as "Blotto."
The game was played by dropping ink in the middle of a piece
of paper, folding the paper
in half to make a more or less symmetrical blot, and then
competing to see who among
the players could generate the most numerous or interesting
descriptions of the blots or
suggest associations to what they resembled. According to
available reports, Rorschach's
enthusiasm for this game, which appealed to adolescents as well
as adults, and his creativity
in playing it led to his being nicknamed "Klex" by his high
school classmates (Exner, 2003,
chap. 1).
From 1917 to 1919, while serving as Associate Director of the
Krombach Mental
Hospital in Herisau, Switzerland, Rorschach pursued a notion he
had formed earlier in
his career that patients with different types of mental disorders
would respond to inkblots
differently from each other and from psychologically healthy
people. To test this notion, he
constructed and experimented with a large number of blots, but
these were not the accidental
ink splotches of the parlor games. Rorschach was a skilled

amateur artist who left behind
an impressive portfolio of drawings that can be viewed in the
Rorschach Archives and
Museum in Bern, Switzerland. The blots with which he
experimented were carefully drawn
by him, and over time he selected a small set that seemed
particularly effective in eliciting
responses and reflecting individual differences.
Rorschach then administered his selected set of blots to samples
of 288 mental hos-
pital patients and 117 nonpatients, using a standard instruction,
"What might this be?"
Rorschach published his findings from this research in a 1921
monograph titled Psychodi-
agnostics (Rorschach, 1921/1942). The materials and methods
described by Rorschach
in Psychodiagnostics provided the basic foundation for the
manner in which Rorschach
assessment has been most commonly practiced since that time,
and the standard Rorschach
plates used today are the same 10 inkblots that were published
with Rorschach's original
monograph.
Rorschach's monograph was nevertheless a preliminary work,
and he was just beginning
to explore potential refinements and applications of the inkblot
method when he succumbed
a year after its publication to peritonitis, following a ruptured
appendix. The monograph
itself did not attract much attention initially, and the method

might have succumbed along
with its creator were it not for the efforts of a few close friends
and colleagues of Rorschach
who were devoted to keeping the method alive. Their efforts
were facilitated by the fact that
Switzerland in the 1920s was a Mecca for medical scientists and
researchers, who visited
from many parts of the world to study with famous physicians at
Swiss hospitals and
medical schools. Some of these visiting scholars and
practitioners heard about Rorschach's
method while they were in Switzerland and took copies of the
inkblots home with them.
As a result, articles on the Rorschach were published during the
1920s in such diverse
countries as Russia, Peru, and Japan.
Turning to how the Rorschach came to the United States, an
American psychiatrist named
David Levy went to Zurich in the mid-1920s to study for a year
with Emil Oberholzer, a
prominent psychoanalyst who had been one of Rorschach's good
friends and supporters.
Levy returned to the United States with several copies of the
inkblots, and that is how the
Rorschach came to America. Levy's interests lay elsewhere, and
the Rorschach materials
languished for a time in his desk at the New York Institute of
Guidance. Then, in 1929,
Samuel Beck, a graduate student at Columbia University who
was doing a fellowship at the
Institute, mentioned to Levy that he was looking for a
dissertation topic. Levy told Beck
about the Rorschach materials he had brought back from
Switzerland and suggested that
Beck might do a research project with them. Acting on this

suggestion, Beck earned his
doctorate with a Rorschach standardization study of children.
While collecting his data,
Beck published the first two English language articles on the
method in 1930 (Beck, 1930a,
1930b). He followed these articles 7 years later with
Introduction to the Rorschach Met hod,
which was the first English language monograph on the
Rorschach, and in 1944 with the
first edition of his basic text, Rorschach's Test: I. Basic
Processes (Beck, 1937, 1944).
Throughout a long, productive career, Beck remained an
influential figure in Rorschach
assessment, and his contributions became internationally known
and respected.
In 1934, Beck went to Switzerland for a year's study with
Oberholzer, and his departure
coincided with the arrival from Zurich of another Rorschach
pioneer, Bruno Klopfer.
Klopfer had received a doctorate in educational psychology in
1922 and by 1933 had
advanced to a senior staff position at the Berlin Information
Center for Child Guidance. He
also had become interested in Jungian psychoanalytic theory
and was in the final phases
of completing training as a Jungian analyst. However, the
restrictions being placed on
Jews in Adolf Hitler's Germany at that time led Klopfer to an
advisedly dim view of his
future professional prospects in Berlin, and he decided to move
to Zurich. Without a job
in Zurich, he was helped by Carl Jung to obtain a position as a
technician at the Zurich

Psychotechnic Institute. Klopfer's responsibilities at the
Institute included psychological
testing of applicants for various jobs, and the Rorschach was
among the tests he was
required to use for this purpose. He had no previous interest or
experience in testing, but
he soon became intrigued with the ways in which Rorschach
responses could reveal the
underlying thoughts and feelings of the people he was testing.
Klopfer was dissatisfied with his low status as a technician and
soon began looking for
other opportunities. His search resulted in his being appointed
as a research associate in the
Department of Anthropology at Columbia University, where he
began working in 1934.
Having learned of his arrival on campus, a group of psychology
graduate students asked their
department to arrange for Klopfer to give them some Rorschach
training. Unimpressed with
Klopfer's credentials, the department declined to hire him for
this purpose. The students
were not deterred, however, and they approached Klopfer
privately about offering some
evening seminars for them in his home, which he agreed to do.
Giving these seminars for this and subsequent groups of
students and professionals
produced a network of Klopfer-trained psychologists who were
eager to keep in touch
with each other and continue exchanging ideas about the
Rorschach. In response to this

interest, Klopfer in 1936 founded the Rorschach Research
Exchange, which has been
published regularly since that time and evolved into the
contemporary Journal ofPersonality
Assessment. In 1938, Klopfer founded the Rorschach Institute, a
scientific and professional
organization that continues to function actively today, and more
broadly than Klopfer
envisioned, as the Society for Personality Assessment. Klopfer's
first Rorschach book, The
Rorschach Technique, appeared in 1942, but it was not until
1954 that he published his
definitive basic text, Developments in the Rorschach Technique:
Volume 1. Technique and
Theory (Klopfer, Ainsworth, Klopfer, & Holt, 1954; Klopfer &
Kelley, 1942).
Because one of them needed a dissertation topic and the other
needed a job, then,
these two Rorschach pioneers were drawn into a lifetime
engagement with the inkblot
method. Like Beck, Klopfer gained international acclaim for his
teaching and writing
about Rorschach assessment. Regrettably for the development of
the instrument, Beck and
Klopfer approached their work from very different perspectives.
Having been educated in
an experimentally oriented department of psychology, Beck was
interested in describing
personality characteristics and was firmly committed to
advancing knowledge through
controlled research designs and empirical data collection. He
stuck closely to Rorschach's
original procedures for administration and coding, and he
favored a primarily quantitative
approach to Rorschach interpretation. With respect to the

distinction between nomothetic
and idiographic approaches in personality assessment discussed
in Chapters 1 (pp. 12-13)
and 2 (p. 34 ), Beck was very much in the nomothetic camp.
Klopfer, on the other hand, was a Jungian analyst at heart and
an enthusiast for idiography.
He had a strong interest in symbolic meanings and with
umaveling the phenomenology of
each person's human experience. He employed qualitative
approaches to interpretation that
Beck considered inappropriate, and he added many new
response codes and summary scores
on the basis of imaginative ideas rather than research data,
which Beck found unacceptable.
These differences in perspective led Beck and Klopfer to
formulate and promulgate
distinctive Rorschach systems that involved dissimilar
approaches to administering, scoring,
and interpreting the test. Divergence in method did not stop
with these two pioneers,
however. In the early 1930s, Beck talked about his Rorschach
research with Marguerite
Hertz, the wife of an old friend of his, who was working on her
doctorate in psychology
at Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Hertz became an
ardent enthusiast for the
value of Rorschach assessment, especially in working with
children. She developed some
distinctive variations of her own in Rorschach administration,

scoring, and interpretation,
and, in the course of a long and productive life as a university
professor, she taught her
approach to many generations of graduate students and
workshop participants.
Klopfer's first seminar group included several psychology
graduate students and a friend
of one of these students who had encouraged him to sit in. This
friend was Zygmunt
Piotrowski, who at the time was a postdoctoral fellow at the
Neuropsychiatric Institute in
New York. Piotrowski had received a doctorate in experimental
psychology in Poland
in 1927 and was in the United States for advanced study in
neuropsychology. Aside
from curiosity, he had little interest in Rorschach assessment
when he joined Klopfer's
seminar group. However, he soon began to contemplate the
possibility that persons with
various kinds of neurological disorders might respond to the
inkblots in ways that would
help identify their condition. Piotrowski subsequently pioneered
in conducting Rorschach
research with brain-injured patients, and he developed many
creative ideas about how the
inkblot method should be conceived, coded, and interpreted.
These new ideas coalesced
into a Rorschach system that Piotrowski called Perceptanalysis
(Piotrowski, 1957). Like
Beck, Klopfer, and Hertz, Piotrowski worked productively
throughout a long life during
which his courses, publications, and lectures introduced a loyal
following to his particular
Rorschach system.

This early history of the Rorschach in America came to a close
with the arrival in
the United States of another refugee from Europe, David
Rapaport, a psychoanalytically
oriented doctoral-level psychologist who fled his native
Hungary in 1938. In 1940, Rapaport
joined the staff of the Menninger Foundation in Topeka,
Kansas, where 2 years later he
became head of the psychology department His responsibilities
at the Foundation included
mounting a research project to evaluate the utility of a battery
of psychological tests for
describing people and facilitating differential diagnosis. The
Rorschach was part of this
test battery, and Rapaport's collaborators in the project included
Roy Schafer, who was an
undergraduate psychology student at the time and completed his
doctoral studies several
years later at Clark University, after moving from the
Menninger Foundation to the Austen
Riggs Center in Massachusetts (see Schafer, 2006).
Rapaport's psychoanalytic perspectives and many original ideas
that he and Schafer
formed about how to elicit and interpret Rorschach responses
resulted in their using a
modified inkblot method that differed substantially from any of
the previous methods.
Publication of a 2-volume treatise based on the Menninger
research project and subsequent
influential books by Schafer established the Rapaport/Schafer
system as another alternative
for practitioners and researchers to consider in their work with
the Rorschach (Rapaport,
Gill, & Schafer, 1946/1968; Schafer, 1948, 1954).

By 1950, then, there were five different Rorschach systems in
the United States, each
with its own adherents. Moreover, even though the Beck and
Klopfer systems had become
well-known abroad, the Rorschach landscape also included
distinctive systems developed
in other countries and popular among psychologists in Europe,
South America, and Japan.
This diversity of method made it difficult for Rorschach
practitioners to communicate with
each other and almost impossible for researchers to cumulate
systematic data concerning
the reliability of Rorschach findings and their validity for
particular purposes. This problem
persisted until the early 1970s, when John Exner undertook to
resolve it by standardizing
the Rorschach method in a conceptually reasonable and
psychometrically sound manner.
Having conducted a detailed comparative analysis of the five
American systems (Exner,
1969), Exner instituted a research program to measure the
impact of the different methods
of administration used in the systems and to identify which of
their response codes could be
explained clearly and coded reliably. Drawing on what appeared
to be the best features of
each of the five American systems, Exner combined them into a
Rorschach Comprehensive
System (CS) that he published in 1974 (Exner, 1974).
The Rorschach CS provides specific and detailed instructions

for administration and
coding that are to be followed in exactly the same way in every
instance. Now in its
fourth edition (Exner, 2003), the CS has become by far the most
frequently used Rorschach
system in the United States as well as in many other countries
of the world. Widespread
adoption of the CS standardization has made possible the
development of large sample
normative standards and international collaboration in
examining cross-cultural similarities
and differences in Rorschach responses. The cross-cultural
applicability of Rorschach
assessment has provided a unique large-scale opportunity to
compare and understand
different cultures from all over the world (see Shaffer, Erdberg,
& Meyer, 2007).
Standard Rorschach procedures have also fostered systematic
collection and comparison
of data concerning intercoder agreement, retest reliability, and
criterion, construct, and
incremental validity, both in the United States and abroad,
which are reviewed later in the
chapter. The advent of the CS has additionally allowed
clinicians who use it to exchange
information about Rorschach findings with confidence that
these findings are based on the
same method of obtaining and codifying the data. The next two
sections of the chapter
provide an overview of the CS administration and coding
procedures.
ADMINISTRATION
To preserve standardization for the reasons just mentioned,

Rorschach examiners should
follow as closely as possible the administration and coding
procedures delineated for the
CS by Exner (2003). Prior to beginning the testing, as discussed
in Chapter 2, the examiner
should have discussed with the person being evaluated such
matters as the purposes of the
assessment and how and to whom the results will be
communicated. People are entitled
to information about these matters, and even a brief discussion
of them can be helpful in
establishing rapport, reducing concerns the person may have
about being examined, and
clarifying misconceptions about the testing process. Typically,
the RIM is part of a test
battery that can be introduced in general terms such as the
following: "As for the tests
we 're going to do, I'll be asking you questions about various
matters and giving you some
tasks to do; let's get started, and I'll show you what each of
these tests is like as we do
them."
In preparing to administer the RIM, the examiner should have
the cards face down in a
single pile where they can be seen but not easily reached by the
examinee. The examiner
should also sit alongside the person or at an angle that is at
least slightly behind the examinee
and out of the person's direct line of vision. This arrangement
makes it easy for people to
show the examiner where on the blots they are seeing their
percepts. Avoiding face-to-face
administration also minimizes the possible influence on test
responses of an examiner's
facial expressions or other bodily movements. The Rorschach

administration should begin
with the following type of explanation:
The next test we're going to do is one you may have heard of.
It's often referred to as the
inkblot test, and it's called that because it consists of a series of
cards with blots of ink on
them. The blots aren't anything in particular, but when people
look at them, they see different
things in them. There are 10 of these cards, and I'm going to
show them to you one at a time
and ask you what kinds of things you see in them and what they
look like to you.
No further explanation should routinely be given of Rorschach
procedures or of what can
be learned from Rorschach responses. Should examinees ask,
"How does this test work?"
they can be told the following: "The way people look at things
says something about what
they are like as a person, and this test will give us information
about your personality
that should be helpful in ... [some reference to the purpose of
the examination]." Should
examinees say something on the order of "So this will be a test
of my imagination" or "You
want me to tell you what they remind me of?" the perceptual
elements of the Rorschach
task should be emphasized by indicating otherwise: "No, this is
a test of what you see

in the blots, and I want you to tell me what they look like to
you." If there are no such
questions or comments that examiners must answer first, they
should proceed directly after
their explanation by handing the person Card I and saying,
"What might this be?"
People will usually take Card I when it is handed to them and
should be asked to do so if
necessary. Having people hold the cards promotes their
engagement in the Rorschach task,
and, as mentioned, the manner in which they handle the cards
can be a source of useful
behavioral data. In other respects, the individual's task during
the Response Phase of the
administration should be left as unstructured as possible. In
response to questions ("How
many responses should I give?" "Can I tum the card?" "Do I use
the whole thing or parts
of it as well?"), examiners should provide noncommittal replies
("It's up to you"; "Any
way you wish"). Should the person begin by saying "It's an
inkblot," the examiner should
restate the basic instruction: "Yes, that's right, but what you
need to do is tell me what it
looks like to you, what kinds of things you see in it."
Occasionally, some additional procedures may be necessary to
obtain a record of suffi-
cient but manageable length. A minimum of 14 responses is
required to ensure the validity
of a Rorschach protocol. Records with fewer than 14 responses
are too brief to be entirely
reliable and rarely support valid interpretations. To decrease the
risk of ending up with
a record of insufficient length, persons who give only one

response to Card I should be
prompted by saying, "If you look at it some more, you'll see
other things as well." If
the person still does not produce more than one response, the
single response should be
accepted and the card taken back. However, individuals who
have given just one or two
responses to Card I, and then handed back or put down Cards II,
III, or IV after only a
single response, can be offered the following indirect
encouragement, should they seem
disengaged from their task and on their way to producing a brief
record with fewer than 14
responses: "Wait, don't hurry through these; we're in no hurry,
take your time." Should the
Response Phase for all IO cards yield fewer than 14 responses,
despite such prompting and
encouragement, the examiner should implement the following
instructions:
Now you know how it's done. But there's a problem. You didn't
give enough answers for us
to learn very much from the test. So let's go through them again,
and this time I'd like you to
give me more responses. You can include the same ones you've
already given, if you like, but
give me more answers this time through.
There is also a standard procedure for not taking more
responses than are necessary for
interpretive purposes. If a person has given five responses to
Card I and appears about to

give more, the examiner should take the card back while saying,
"Okay, that's fine, let's
go on to the next one." This procedure can be repeated on each
subsequent card, should
the person continue to give five responses and appear ready to
give more. However, if
on any card the person gives fewer than five responses, the
limiting procedure should be
discontinued and not resumed, even if the person later on gives
more than five responses
to some card. Exner (2003, pp. 52-56) identifies some unusual
circumstances that might
warrant departing from these standard guidelines for increasing
or curtailing response total,
but the procedures presented here suffice with few exceptions to
direct the Response Phase
of the administration.
Of additional importance in conducting both the Response Phase
and the subsequent
Inquiry Phase is verbatim recording of whatever the examiner
and the examinee say.
Accurate coding and thorough interpretation depend on having a
complete account of
exactly how people expressed themselves and precisely what
they were told or asked by the
examiner. Most examiners rely on a system of abbreviations to
simplify the task of recording
a verbatim protocol; for example, using "II a bfly" for "Looks
like a butterfly" or "enc" to
indicate when they have used the encouragement prompt after
getting only one response on
Card I. Some examiners tape-record Rorschach administrations
to ensure preservation of
the verbatim record. Whatever means is used, adequate
Rorschach administration demands

maintaining the integrity of the raw data. To this end, examiners
should write down how
examinees behave during the administration as well as what
they say (e.g., "laughed," "big
sigh," "detached, looking at ceiling") to provide the behavioral
data that emich Rorschach
interpretation.
Following completion of the Response Phase, the examiner
should introduce the Inquiry
Phase of the administration as follows:
Now I want to take a moment to go through these cards with
you again, so that I can see the
things you saw. I'll read back each of the things you said, and
for each one I'd like you to tell
me where you saw it and what made it look like that to you.
The examiner should then hand the cards to the person one at a
time, say for each
response something on the order of "On this one you saw ..." or
"Then you said ... "
or "Next there was ... ," and then complete this statement with a
verbatim reading of the
person's exact words. Nondirective prompts should then be used
as necessary to help people
comply with the inquiry instructions by clarifying what they
have seen, where on the blot
they saw it, and why it looked as it did to them. With respect to
what the person has seen,
appropriate prompts would include such statements and
questions as "I'm not sure what it
is you're seeing there," "Is it the whole person or just part of the
person?" or "You said it
could be a butterfly or a moth-which does it look more like to
you?"

To inquire about where the person has seen a percept, the
examiner might ask, "How
much of the blot is included in it?" or say, "You mentioned a
head and a tail, and I'm not
clear which part of the blot is which." Should the response to
such questions or statements
leave unclear where a percept has been seen, examinees should
be asked to outline with
their finger the area of the blot they were using for it. Inquiry
about what made a percept
look as it did can take the form of such questions as "What
made it look like that to you?"
"What helped you see it that way?" or "What about the blot
suggested that to you?" In
each of these aspects of the Inquiry Phase, examiners should
strive as much as possible
to eliminate ambiguity concerning the what, where, and why of
a response, because such
ambiguities in responses are the main source of uncertainty in
deciding how to code
them.
As these nondirective questions and statements illustrate, a
paramount principle of con-
ducting a Rorschach inquiry is to avoid leading the examinee or
providing clues to what
may be expected or desired. For example, "Are the people doing
anything?" and "Did the
color help you see it that way?" are inappropriate questions,

because they can convey that
movement and color are important for the person to note. Such
messages can influence
individuals to articulate more movement or color determinants
during the course of an
inquiry than they would have otherwise. As a similar precaution
against conveying unin-
tended messages, examiners should avoid the question
"Anything else?" Asking "Anything
else?" can suggest that more is expected from the person, or that
something has been left
out, either of which can lead individuals to say more than they
would have otherwise and
thereby detract from the standardization of the administration.
A second guiding principle in conducting the Inquiry Phase
concerns its basic purpose,
which is to enable accurate coding of the response. With this
principle in mind, examiners
should stop inquiring about a response once they have obtained
enough information to
code it. For example, "Two people standing there" is clearly a
human movement response
that, as indicated in the next section, warrants coding an M. It is
neither necessary nor
appropriate to ask, "What makes it look like two people
standing there?" The additional
question in this instance would not generate any information
necessary to code an M.
Asking such unnecessary questions violates CS standardization
and may have the unwanted
consequence of eliciting response elaborations that, however
interesting, would not have
occurred if standard procedures had been followed.
Should a person report, "Two funny-looking people picking up a

basket," there is no
need to inquire about the human movement, but two other
inquiry questions would be called
for: "What suggests that the people are funny-looking?" and
"What helped you see this part
as a basket?" The first question illustrates the importance of
inquiring about key words in an
individual's responses, particularly nouns, adjectives, verbs, and
adverbs that give responses
a potentially distinctive flavor. Consider the following
examples, with the key words shown
in italics: "Two witches dancing" [Inquiry: What suggests they
are witches?]; "Two old
people dancing" [Inquiry: What makes them look like old
people?]; "Two people arguing or
fighting" [Inquiry: What helps you see them as arguing or
fighting?]; "Two people walking
along slowly" [Inquiry: What gave you the idea that they're
walking slowly?]. The second
question illustrates the importance of inquiring about each part
of a complex response. Thus
"Animals climbing a tree" requires clarifying the where and the
why for both the animals
and the tree, "A jet plane with exhaust coming out the back"
must be inquired sufficiently
to code both the plane and the exhaust, and so on.
CODING AND SCORING
The scoring of a Rorschach protocol is a two-step process. The
first step consists of
assigning each response a set of codes that identify various
features of how the response
has been formulated and expressed. The second step consists of
combining these response

This guideline does not preclude person-specific features of
card pull that may influence
a person's behavior or responses on Card IX. The popular
human figures may in some
instances pull an impression that they are fighting, in which
case Card IX could arouse
some concerns about aggression. Similarly, the resemblance of
the lower middle red detail
of Card IX to female genitals could evoke some sexual concerns
that affect a person's
manner and responses while looking at this card. Neither of
these possible Card IX pulls is
as strong or common as the other card pulls identified in this
section.
CardX
The broken appearance of Card X and its array of loosely
connected but rather sharply
defined and colored details give it a close structural
resemblance to Card VIII. At the same
time, the sheer number of variegated shapes and colors on Card
X imbue it with the same
type of uncertainty and complexity posed by Card IX. Although
Card X is usually seen
as a pleasant stimulus and offers examinees many alternative
possibilities for easily seen
percepts, the challenge of organizing it effectively makes it the
second most difficult card
to manage, after Card IX. Particularly for people who feel
overwhelmed or overburdened
by having to deal with many things at once, responding to Card

X, despite its pleasant
appearance and bright colors, may be a disconcerting experience
that they dislike and are
happy to complete.
Finally of note is the position of Card X as the final card. Just
as the initial response in a
record may be a way for people to sign in and introduce what
they feel is important about
themselves, the last response may serve as an opportuni ty to
sign out by indicating, in effect,
"When all is said and done, this is where things stand for me
and what I want you to know
about me." As a parallel to the example given earlier of a sign-
in response, consider the
contrasting implications of the following responses for the
present status of two depressed
persons. The first one concluded Card X by saying, "And it
looks like everything is falling
apart"; the second one concluded, "And it's brightly colored,
like the sun is coming up."
APPLICATIONS
In common with the self-report inventories presented in
Chapters 6 through I 0, the RIM is an
omnibus personality assessment instrument, in the sense that it
provides information about
a broad range of personality characteristics. As elaborated in
discussing the interpretive
significance of Rorschach findings, these data shed light on the
adequacy of a person's
adaptive capacities in several key respects, on the types of
psychological states and traits
that define what the person is like, and on the underlying needs,
attitudes, conflicts, and

concerns that may be influencing the person's behavior. Such
information about personality
functioning serves practical purposes by helping to identify (a)
the presence and nature of
psychological disorder, (b) whether a person needs and is likely
to benefit from various
kinds of treatment, and (c) the probability of a person's
functioning effectively in certain
kinds of situations.
By serving these purposes, the RIM frequently facilitates
making decisions that are
based in part on personality characteristics. Such personality-
based decisions commonly
characterize the practice of clinical, forensic, and
organizational psychology, the three
contexts in which Rorschach assessment finds its most frequent
applications.
Clinical Practice
Rorschach assessment contributes to clinical practice by
assisting in differential diagno-
sis and treatment planning and outcome evaluation. With
respect to differential diagnosis,
many states and traits identified by Rorschach variables are
associated with particular forms
of psychopathology. Schizophrenia is usually defined to include
disordered thinking and
poor reality testing, and Rorschach evidence of these cognitive
impairments (low XA %

and WDA %, an elevated WSum6) accordingly indicates the
likelihood of a schizophrenia
spectrum disorder. Similarly, because paranoia involves being
hypervigilant and interper-
sonally aversive, a positive HVI suggests the presence of
paranoid features in how people
look at their world. Depressive disorder is suggested by
Rorschach indices of dysphoria
( elevated C', Col-Shd Bids) and negative self-attitudes (
elevated V, low Jr+ 2/R), obsessive-
compulsive personality disorder is suggested by indices of
pedantry and perfectionism
(positive OBS), and so on. To learn more about these and other
applications of Rorschach
findings in differential diagnosis, readers are referred to articles
and books by Hartmann,
Norbech, and Gr11mner!?)d (2006), Huprich (2006), Kleiger
(1999), and Weiner (2003b).
The applications to which the RIM contributes by measuring
personality characteristics
identify its limitations as well. In assessing psychopathology,
Rorschach data are of little use
in determining the particular symptoms a person is manifesting.
Someone with Rorschach
indications of an obsessive-compulsive personality style may be
a compulsive hand washer,
an obsessive prognosticator, or neither. Someone with
depressive preoccupations may be
having crying spells, disturbed sleep, or neither. There is no
isomorphic relationship between
the personality characteristics of disturbed people and their
specific symptoms. Accordingly,
the nature of these symptoms is better determined from
observing or asking directly about
them than by speculating about their presence on the basis of

Rorschach data.
Likewise, Rorschach data do not provide dependable indications
concerning whether a
person has had certain life experiences (e.g., been sexually
abused) or behaved in certain
ways (e.g., abused alcohol or drugs). Only when there is a
substantial known correlation
between specific personality characteristics and the likelihood
of certain experiences or be-
havior having occurred can Rorschach findings provide reliable
postdictions, as mentioned.
The predictive validity of Rorschach findings are similarly
limited by the extent to which
personality factors determine whatever is to be identified or
predicted.
As for treatment planning, Rorschach findings measure
personality characteristics that
have a bearing on numerous decisions that must be made prior
to and during an intervention
process. The degree of disturbance or coping incapacity
reflected in Rorschach responses
assists in determining whether a person requires inpatient care
or is functioning sufficiently
well to be treated as an outpatient. Considered together with the
person's preferences, the
personality style and severity of distress or disorganization
revealed by Rorschach findings
help indicate whether treatment needs will best be met by a
supportive approach oriented
to relieving distress, a cognitive-behavioral approach designed
to modify symptoms or
behavior, or an exploratory approach intended to enhance self-
understanding. Whichever
treatment approach is implemented, the maladaptive personality

traits and the underlying
concerns identified by the Rorschach data can help therapists
determine, in consultation
with their patients, what the goals for the treatment should be
and in what order these
treatment targets should be addressed (see Weiner, 2005b).
Some predictive utility derives from the fact that certain
personality characteristics mea-
sured by Rorschach variables are typically associated with
ability to participate in and
benefit from psychological treatment. These personality
characteristics include being open
to experience (Lambda not elevated), cognitively flexible
(balanced a:p), emotionally re-
sponsive (adequate WSumC and Afr), interpersonally receptive
(presence of T, adequate
SumH), and personally introspective (presence of FD), each of
which facilitates engage-
ment and progress in psychotherapy. By contrast, having an
avoidant or guarded approach
to experience, being set in one's ways, having difficulty
recognizing and expressing one's
feelings, being interpersonally aversive or withdrawn, and
lacking psychological minded-
ness are often obstacles to progress in psychotherapy (Clarkin &
Levy, 2004; Weiner, 1998,
chap. 2).

In a research project relevant to the utility of the RIM in
guiding therapist activity
once treatment is underway, Blatt and Ford (1994) used
Rorschach variables to assist in
categorizing patients as having problems primarily with forming
satisfying interpersonal
relationships (called anac/itic) or primarily with maintaining
their own sense of identity,
autonomy, and self-worth ( called introjective). In the course of
their subsequent psychother-
apy, the anaclitic patients studied by Blatt and Ford were
initially more involved in and
responsive to relational aspects of the treatment than the
introjective patients, who were
more attuned to and influenced by their therapist's
interpretations than by attention to the
treatment relationship.
By helping to identify treatment goals and targets, Rorschach
assessment can also
be helpful in monitoring treatment progress and evaluating
treatment outcome. Suppose
that a RIM is administered prior to beginning therapy and
certain treatment targets can
be identified in Rorschach terms (e.g., reducing subjectively felt
distress, as in changing
D < 0 to D = O; increasing receptivity to emotional arousal, as
in bringing up a low Afr;
promoting more careful problem solving, as in reducing a Zd < -
3.5). Retesting after
some period of time can then provide quantitative indications of
how much progress has
been made toward achieving these goals and how much work
remains to be done on them.
Rorschach evidence concerning the extent to which the goals of

the treatment have been
achieved can guide therapists in deciding if and when
termination is indicated. Similarly,
comparing Rorschach findings at the point of termination or in a
later follow-up evaluation
with those obtained in a pretreatment evaluation will provide a
useful objective measure of
the effects of the treatment, for better or worse.
Both research findings and case reports have demonstrated how
Rorschach assessment
can be applied in treatment outcome evaluation. In studies
reported by Weiner and Exner
(1991) and Exner and Andronikof-Sanglade (1992), patients in
long-term, short-term, and
brief psychotherapy were examined at several points during and
after their treatment.
The data analysis focused on 27 structural variables considered
to have implications for
a person's overall level of adjustment. The results of both
studies showed significant
positive changes in these Rorschach variables over the course of
therapy, consistent with
expectation, and the amount of improvement was associated
with the length of the therapy.
These findings were considered to demonstrate both the
effectiveness of psychotherapy
in promoting positive personality change and the validity of the
RIM in measuring such
change.

In a study with similar implications, Fowler et al. (2004)
monitored the progress of
a group of previously treatment-refractory patients who entered
a residential treatment
center and were engaged in psychodynamically oriented
psychotherapy. After a treatment
duration averaging 16 months, these patients showed significant
improvement in their
average behavior ratings on scales related to social and
occupational functioning, and
these improvements were matched by significant changes for the
better in their average
scores on three Rorschach scales based on response content.
With its thematic imagery
as well as its structural variables, then, Rorschach assessment
has been shown to provide
valid measurement of treatment progress, while helping to
demonstrate the effectiveness of
the treatment. Readers are referred to Weiner (2004a, 2005a) for
additional discussion of
Rorschach monitoring of psychotherapy and a detailed case
study that illustrates positive
Rorschach changes accompanying successful psychotherapy.
Forensic Practice
In the clinical applications just discussed, diagnostic inferences
derive from linkages be-
tween personality characteristics that typify certain disorders
and Rorschach variables that
measure these characteristics. In similar fashion, forensic
applications of Rorschach as-

sessment in criminal, civil, and family law cases derive from a
translation of legal concepts
into psychological terms.
In criminal law, the two questions most commonly addressed to
consulting psychologists
concern whether an accused person is competent to proceed to
trial and whether the person
can or should be held responsible for the alleged criminal
behavior. Being competent in
this context consists of having a rational and factual
understanding of the legal proceedings
one is facing and being able to participate effectively in one's
own defense. These principal
components of competency are commonly translated into
specific questions such as (a)
whether defendants appreciate the nature of the charges and
possible penalties they are
facing, (b) whether they understand the adversarial process and
the roles of the key people
in it, (c) whether they can disclose pertinent facts in their case
to their attorney, and
(d) whether they are capable of behaving appropriately in the
courtroom and testifying
relevantly in their own behalf (Stafford, 2003; Zapf & Roesch,
2006).
With respect to dimensions of personality functioning, these
aspects of competence are
most closely related to being able to think logically and
coherently and to perceive people
and events accurately. Disordered thinking and impaired reality
testing, in combination with
the poor judgment and inappropriate behavior typically
associated with them, can interfere

with a person's ability to demonstrate competence. Accordingly,
the same Rorschach indices
of disordered thinking and impaired reality testing just
mentioned in connection with
differential diagnosis (low XA % , low WDA % , elevated
WSum6), although not sufficient
evidence of incompetence, serve two purposes in this regard.
They alert the examiner to
a distinct likelihood that the defendant will have difficulty
satisfying customary criteria
for competency to stand trial, and if a defendant appears
incompetent with respect to the
applicable criteria, these Rorschach findings help the examiner
explain to the court why the
person is having this difficulty.
Criminal responsibility refers in legal terms to whether an
accused person was legally
sane at the time of committing an alleged offense. In some
jurisdictions, insanity is defined as
a cognitive incapacity that prevented the accused person from
recognizing the criminality
of his or her actions or appreciating the wrongfulness of this
conduct. Insanity in other
jurisdictions is defined either as this type of cognitive
incapacity or as a loss of behavioral
control, such that the person was unable to alter or refrain from
the alleged criminal conduct
at the time (Goldstein, Morse, & Shapiro, 2003; Zapf, Golding,
& Roesch, 2006).

With respect to personality functioning, cognitive incapacity is
measured on the RIM by
the previously mentioned indices of disordered thinking and
poor reality testing. Behavioral
dyscontrol is suggested by Rorschach indices of acute and
chronic stress overload (minus
D-score, minus AdjD-score), which are commonly associated
with limited frustration toler-
ance, intemperate outbursts of affect, and episodes of impulsive
behavior. However, because
legal sanity is defined by the person's state of mind at the time
of an alleged offense, and not
at the time of a present examination, Rorschach findings
suggesting cognitive impairment
or susceptibility to loss of control must be supplemented by
other types of information
(e.g., observations of defendants' behavior by witnesses to their
alleged offense and by the
law enforcement officers who arrested them) to serve
adequately as a basis for drawing
conclusions about criminal responsibility.
In civil law cases involving allegations of personal injury,
personality assessment helps to
determine the extent to which a person has become emotionally
distressed or incapacitated
as a consequence of irresponsible behavior on the part of
another person or some entity. As
prescribed by tort law, this circumstance exists when the
potentially liable person or entity
has, by omission or commission of certain actions, been derelict
in a duty or obligation to
the complainant, thereby causing the aggrieved person to
experience psychological injury
that would otherwise not have occurred (see Greenberg, 2003).

Emotional distress caused by the irresponsible actions of others
is often likely to be
reflected in Rorschach responses, most commonly in indications
of generalized anxiety,
stress disorder, depressive affect and cognitions, and psychotic
loss of touch with reality.
Persons with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder tend to produce one
of two types of
Rorschach protocols. Those whose disorder is manifest
primarily in the reexperiencing
of distressing events and mental and physical hyperarousal tend
to produce a flooded pro-
tocol that is notable for the incursions of anxiety on
comfortable and effective functioning.
The implications of the minus D-score and minus Adj D-score
for stress overload can
be particularly helpful in identifying such incursions, as can a
high frequency of content
codes suggesting concerns about bodily harm (e.g., AG, An, Bl,
MOR, Sx; see Armstrong &
Kaser-Boyd, 2004; Kelly, 1999; Luxenberg & Levin, 2004).
Those anxious or traumatized
persons whose disorder is manifest primarily in efforts to avoid
or withdraw from thoughts,
feelings, or situations that might precipitate psychological
distress tend to produce a con-
stricted Rorschach protocol that is notably guarded or evasive.
Such hallmarks of a guarded
record as a low R, high Lambda, low WSumC, andD = 0 tend to
increase the likelihood that
a person who has been exposed to a potentially traumatizing
experience is experiencing a
stress disorder characterized by defensive avoidance.

However, neither flooded nor constricted Rorschach protocols
are specific to anxiety
and stress disorder, nor do they provide conclusive evidence
that such a disorder is present.
Given historical and other clinical or test data to suggest such a
disorder, they merely
increase its likelihood. Moreover, as in the case of evaluating
sanity, the results of a present
personal injury examination are useful only if they can be
interpreted in the context of
past events. Personal injury cases require examiners to
determine whether any currently
observed distress predated the alleged misconduct by the
defendant and whether this distress
constitutes a decline in functioni ng capacity from some
previously higher level prior to when
the misconduct occurred.
Similar considerations apply in the assessment of depressive or
psychotic features in
plaintiffs seeking personal injury damages. As noted, the DEPI
and its several components
are helpful in identifying the presence of dysphoric affect and
negative cognitions, but they
do not provide a dependable basis for ruling out these features
of depression. A psychotic
impairment of reality testing is indicated by a low XA% and
low WDA%, and psychosis
can usually be ruled out if these variables fall within a normal
range. Lack of evidence
of psychosis would counter a plaintiff's claim to have suffered

psychological injury, but
present indications of psychosis would give little support to
such a claim unless other
reliable data (e.g., previous testing, historical indications of
sound mental health) gave
good reason to believe that this person was not psychotic prior
to the alleged harmful
conduct by the defendant.
Personality assessment also enters into family law cases, in the
context of disputed child
custody and visitation rights. In determining how a child's time
and supervision should be
divided between separated or divorced parents, judges
frequently make their determination
partly on the basis of information about the personality
characteristics of the child and the
parents. Similarly, in deciding whether persons should have
their parental rights terminated,
courts often seek information about their personality strengths
and weaknesses as identified
by a psychological examination. There are no infallible
guidelines concerning which of two
persons would be the better parent for a particular child, nor is
there any perfect measure of
suitability to parent. However, certain personality
characteristics as measured by the RIM
are likely to enhance or detract from parents' abilities to meet
the needs of their children.
These characteristics pertain to the presence or absence of
serious psychological distur-
bance, the adequacy of the person's coping skills, and the
person's degree of interpersonal
accessibility.
Although having a psychological disorder does not necessarily

prevent a person from
being a good parent, being seriously disturbed or
psychologically incapacitated is likely to
interfere with a person's having sufficient judgment, impulse
control, energy, and peace of
mind to function effectively in a parental capacity. As indicated
in presenting interpretive
guidelines for the RIM and as previously mentioned in this
section on applications, several
Rorschach variables help identify such serious disturbance.
These include indices of signif-
icant thinking disorder and substantially impaired reality testing
(elevated PT/), pervasive
dysphoria and negative cognitions (elevated DEP[),
overwhelming anxiety (a large minus
D-score), and marked suicide potential (elevated S-CON).
As for coping skills, good parenting is facilitated by capacities
for good judgment,
careful decision making, a flexible approach to solving
problems, and effective stress
management. Conversely, poor judgment, careless decision
making, inflexible problem
solving, and inability to manage stress without becoming unduly
upset are likely to interfere
with effective parenting. Rorschach findings often cast light on
the adequacy of a person's
skills in each of these respects, as noted in discussing
interpretive guidelines: XA% with
respect to judgment; Zd with respect to decision making; a:p
with respect to problem-
solving approach; and D-score with respect to stress
management. This is by no means a
definitive or exhaustive list of coping skills relevant to quality
of parenting or of Rorschach
variables that might prove helpful in evaluating parental

suitability. The list nevertheless
illustrates important respects in which Rorschach assessment
can be applied in family law
consultation.
Finally, with respect to interpersonal accessibility, the quality
of child care that par-
ents can provide is usually enhanced by their being a person
who is interested in people
and comfortable being around them, a person who is nurturing
and caring in his or her
relationships with others, and a person who is sufficiently
empathic to understand what
other people are like and recognize their needs and concerns.
Conversely, interpersonal
disinterest and discomfort are likely to detract from parental
effectiveness, as is being a
detached, self-absorbed, or insensitive person. In Rorschach
terms, then, the likelihood of
a person's being a good parent is measured in part by the
interpersonal cluster of variables
discussed earlier, which means that good parenting is often,
though not always, associated
with the following seven Rorschach findings:
1. SumH > 3
2. H > Hd + (H) + (Hd)
3. /SOL< .25
4. p <a+ 2

5. T >0
6. COP> 1
7. Accurate M > 2 and M- < 2
In drawing these inferences about interpersonal accessibility,
examiners must always
keep in mind that such Rorschach findings may suggest how
parents are likely to in-
teract with their children, but they are never conclusive. The
test data identify probable
parental strengths or limitations in interpersonal accessibility
that should be considered as
evaluators proceed to observe and obtain reports of how parents
are functioning. Integra-
tion of Rorschach indications of adjustment level and coping
skills with these behavioral
observations and reports should always precede coming to
conclusions about a person's
effectiveness as a parent. Further elaboration of these and other
substantive guidelines in
forensic Rorschach assessment is provided by Erard (2005),
Gacono, Evans, Kaser-Boyd,
and Gacono (in press), Johnston, Walters, & Olesen (2005), and
Weiner (2005a, 2006,
2007, in press).
Whatever the nature of a forensic case, attention must be paid
not only to the substantive
interpretation of Rorschach findings, but also to whether
testimony based on these findings
is admissible into evidence in courtroom proceedings.
Applicable criteria for admissibility
vary, depending on the particular federal or state jurisdiction in

which a case is being
tried, and judges have considerable discretion in determining
what types of testimony are
allowed. As established by published guidelines and case law,
the criteria used in individual
cases involve some combination of the following
considerations: whether the testimony is
relevant to the issues in the case and will help the judge or jury
arrive at their decision
(Federal Rules of Evidence); whether the testimony is based on
generally accepted methods
and procedures in the expert's field (Frye standard); and
whether the testimony is derived
from scientifically sound methods and procedures (Daubert
standard; see Ewing, 2003;
Hess, 2006).
The RIM satisfies criteria for admissibility in all three of these
respects. The usefulness of
Rorschach-based testimony in facilitating legal decisions is
demonstrated by the frequency
with which this testimony is in fact welcomed in the courtroom.
In a survey of almost 8,000
cases in which forensic psychologists offered the court
Rorschach-based testimony, the
appropriateness of the instrument was challenged in only six
instances, and in only one of
these cases was the testimony ruled inadmissible (Weiner,
Exner, & Sciara, 1996). Among
the full set of 247 cases in which Rorschach evidence was
presented to a federal, state, or
military court of appeals during the half-century from 1945 to

1995, the admissibility and
weight of the Rorschach data were questioned in only 10.5% of
the hearings. The relevance
and utility of Rorschach assessment was challenged in only two
of these appellate cases,
and the remaining criticisms of the Rorschach testimony were
directed at the interpretation
of the data, not the method itself (Meloy, Hansen, & Weiner,
1997).
More recently Meloy (in press) has examined the full set of 150
published cases in
which Rorschach findings were cited in federal, state, and
military appellate court pro-
ceedings during the 10-year period from 1996 to 2005. These
150 cases over a 10-year
period indicate an average of 15 Rorschach citations per year in
appellate cases, which
is three times the annual rate of citation found by Meloy et al.
(1997) for the preceding
50 years. Along with this greatly increased use of the RIM in
appellate courts, the percentage
of cases in which these courts recorded criticisms of Rorschach
testimony decreased from
10.5% during 1945 to 1995 to just 2% during 1996 to 2005. In
not one of these 1996 to 2005
appellate cases was the Rorschach method ridiculed or
disparaged by opposing counsel.
The general acceptance of the Rorschach method is reflected in
data concerning how
frequently it is used, taught, and studied. Surveys over the past
40 years have consistently
shown substantial endorsement of Rorschach testing as a
valuable skill to teach, learn, and

practice. Among clinical psychologists, the RIM has been the
fourth most widely used test,
exceeded in frequency of use only by the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale (WAIS), the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), and the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children (WISC), in that order (Hogan, 2005). Surveys also
indicate that over 80% of
clinical psychologists engaged in providing assessment services
use the RIM in their work
and believe that clinical students should be competent in
Rorschach assessment; that over
80% of graduate programs teach the RIM; and that students
usually find this training helpful
in improving their assessment skills and their understanding of
the patients and clients with
whom they work (see Camara, Nathan, & Puente, 2000;
Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001).
With respect to assessment of young people, 162 child and
adolescent practitioners
surveyed by Cashel (2002) reported that the RIM was their third
most frequently used
personality assessment measure, following sentence completion
and figure drawing meth-
ods. Among 346 psychologists working with adolescents in
clinical and academic settings,
Archer and Newsom (2000) found the RIM to be their most
frequently used personality
test and second among all tests only to the Wechsler scales.
Surveys of training directors in predoctoral internship sites have
also identified
widespread endorsement of the value of Rorschach testing.
Training directors report that
the RIM is one of the three measures most frequently used in

their test batteries (along
with the WAIS/WISC and the MMPI-2/MMPI-A), and they
commonly express the hope or
expectation that their incoming interns will have had a
Rorschach course or at least arrive
with a good working knowledge of the instrument (Clemence &
Handler, 2001; Stedman,
Hatch, & Schoenfeld, 2000).
Survey findings confirm that Rorschach assessment has gained
an established place in
forensic as well as clinical practice. Data collected from
forensic psychologists by Ack-
erman and Ackerman (1997), Boccaccini and Brodsky (1999),
Borum and Grisso (1995),
and Quinnell and Bow (2001) showed 30% using the RIM in
evaluations of competency
to stand trial, 32 % in evaluations of criminal responsibility, 41
% in evaluations of personal
injury, 44% to 48% in evaluations of adults involved in custody
disputes, and 23% in eval-
uations of children in custody cases. Consistent with these
earlier surveys, a more recent
report by Archer, Buffington-Vollum, Stredny, and Handel
(2006) indicated Rorschach us-
age for all purposes combined by 36% of the forensic
psychologists participating in their
survey.
As for study of the instrument, the scientific status of the RIM

has been attested over
many years by a steady and substantial volume of published
research concerning its nature
and utility. Buros (1974) Tests in Print II identified 4,580
Rorschach references through
1971, with an average yearly rate of 92 publications. In the
1990s, Butcher and Rouse ( 1996)
found an almost identical trend continuing from 197 4 to 1994.
An average of 96 Rorschach
research articles appeared annually during this 20-year period in
journals published in the
United States, and the RIM was second only to the MMPI
among personality assessment
instruments in the volume of research it generated. For the 3-
year period 2004 to 2006,
PsycINFO lists 350 scientific articles, books, book chapters,
and dissertations worldwide
concerning Rorschach assessment.
There is in fact a large international community of Rorschach
scholars and practitioners
whose research published abroad has for many years made
important contributions to
the literature (see Weiner, 1999). The international presence of
Rorschach assessment is
reflected in a survey of test use in Spain, Portugal, and Latin
American countries by Muniz,
Prieto, Almeida, and Bartram (1999) in which the RIM emerged
as the third most widely
used psychological assessment instrument, following the
Wechsler scales and versions of
the MMPI. The results of surveys in Japan, as reported by
Ogawa (2004 ), indicate that about
60% of Japanese clinical psychologists use the RIM in their
daily practice. An International
Rorschach Society was founded in 1952, and triennial

congresses sponsored by this society
typically attract participants from over 30 countries and all
parts of the world.
With respect to the scientific soundness of Rorschach
assessment, the final section of
this chapter reviews extensive research findings that document
the adequate intercoder
agreement and retest reliability of the instrument, its validity
when used appropriately for
its intended purposes, and the availability of normative
reference data for representative
samples of children and adults. Significantly in this regard,
Meloy (2007) reported in his
previously mentioned review, "There has been no Daubert
challenge to the scientific status
of the Rorschach in any state, federal, or military court of
appeal since the U.S. Supreme
Court decision in 1993 set the federal standard for admissibility
of scientific evidence"
(p. 85).
Despite widespread dissemination of this information, some
authors have contended
that Rorschach assessment does not satisfy contemporary
criteria for admissibility into
evidence and have discouraged forensic examiners from using
the RIM, even to the point
of calling for a moratorium on its use in forensic settings (Garb,
1999; Grove & Barden,
1999). These Rorschach critics have not presented any data to
refute previous surveys in
this regard or to support their contention that the RIM is
unwelcome in the courtroom. The
ways in which Rorschach assessment has been demonstrated to
assist in forensic decision

making are amplified further in contributions by McCann (1998,
2004), McCann and Evans
(in press), Ritzier, Erard, and Pettigrew (2002), and Hilsenroth
and Stricker (2004).
Organizational Practice
Rorschach assessment in organizational practice is concerned
primarily with the selection
and evaluation of personnel. Personnel selection typically
consists of determining whether
a person applying for a position in an organization is suitable to
fill it, or whether a person
already in the organization is qualified for promotion to a
position of increased respon-
sibility. Standard psychological procedure in making such
selection decisions consists of
first identifying the personality requirements for success in the
position being applied or
aspired to, and then determining the extent to which a candidate
shows these personality
characteristics.
A leadership position requiring initiative and rapid decision
making would probably not
be filled well by a person who is behaviorally passive and given
to painstaking care in
coming to conclusions, as would be suggested by Rorschach
findings of p > a + I and
Zd > + 3.0. A position in sales or public relations that calls for

extensive and persuasive
interaction with people is unlikely to be a good fit for a person
who is emotionally withdrawn
and socially uncomfortable, as would be suggested by a low Afr
and H < Hd + (H) + (Hd).
Among persons being considered for hire as an air traffic
controller or a nuclear power
plant supervisor, it would support their candidacy to find
evidence on personality testing
of good coping capacities and the ability to remain calm and
exercise good judgment even
in highly stressful situations-in Rorschach terms, a person with
a high EA, D > = 0, and
XA % in the normal range.
Personnel evaluations may also involve assessing the current
fitness for duty of persons
whose ability to function has become impaired by psychological
disorder. Most common
in this regard is the onset of an anxiety or depressive disorder
that prevents people from
continuing to perform their job or practice their profession as
competently as they had
previously. Impaired professionals seen for psychological
evaluation may also have had
difficulties related to abuse of alcohol, drugs, or prescription
medicine. Because Rorschach
data can help identify the extent to which people are anxious or
depressed and whether
they are struggling with more stress than they can manage, the
RIM can often contribute to
determining fitness for duty and assessing progress toward
recovery in persons participating
in a treatment or rehabilitation program.
Violence in the workplace has also given rise in recent years to

frequent referrals for
fitness-for-duty evaluations, usually in the wake of an
employee's making verbal threats
or acting aggressively on the job. Estimation of violence
potential is a complex process
that requires careful consideration of an individual 's personality
characteristics, interper-
sonal and sociocultural context, and previous history of violent
behavior (Monahan, 2003 ).
Personality characteristics do not by themselves provide
sufficient basis for concluding that
someone poses a danger to the safety and welfare of others.
However, there is reason to
believe that certain personality characteristics increase the
likelihood of violent behavior
in persons who have behaved violently in the past and are
currently confronting annoying
or threatening situations that on previous occasions were likely
to provoke aggressive reac-
tions on their part. Following is a list of personality
characteristics and Rorschach findings
identified earlier in the chapter that help identify them (see also
Gacono, 2000; Gacono &
Meloy, 1994).
1. Being a selfish and self-centered person with a callous
disregard for the rights and
feelings of other people and a sense of entitlement to do and
have whatever one wants
(e.g., Fr+ rF > 0 and Jr+ (2)/R elevated).

2. Being a psychologically distant person who is generally
mistrustful of others, avoids
intimate relationship, and either ignores people or exploits them
to one's own ends (e.g.,
HVI, T = 0, low SumH, COP = 0 with AG > 2).
3. Being an angry and action-oriented person inclined to express
this anger directly (e.g.,
S > 3, a > p, extratensive EB).
4. Being an impulsive person with little tolerance for
frustration, or a psychologically
disturbed person with impaired reality testing and poor
judgment ( e.g., D < 0, AdjD <
0,XA% and WDA% low).
Neither these personality characteristics nor the Rorschach
variables associated with
them are specific to persons who show violent behavior. Even
among people who exhibit all
these characteristics and Rorschach findings, moreover, many or
most may never consider
physically assaulting another person. However, in persons with
a history of violent behavior
who are exposed to violence-provoking circumstances, each of
these characteristics and
findings increases violence potential risk. The more numerous
these characteristics and
findings, and the more pronounced they are, the greater is the
violence risk they suggest.
As mentioned in discussing the history of Rorschach
assessment, the blossoming of vari-
ous Rorschach systems in the United States and abroad enriched

the instrument for clinical
purposes, but at a cost to its scientific development. The many
Rorschach variations cre-
ated by gifted and respected clinicians limited cumulative
research on the psychometric
properties of the instrument prior to Exner's 1974
standardization of coding and adminis-
tration procedures in the Comprehensive System (CS).
Subsequent widespread use of the
CS in research and practice has fostered substantial advances in
knowledge concerning the
psychometric soundness of the RIM, particularly with respect to
its intercoder agreement,
retest reliability, validity, and normative reference base.
Intercoder Agreement
In constructing the Rorschach CS, Exner included only
variables on which his coders could
achieve at least 80% agreement, and subsequent research
confirmed that the CS variables
can be reliably coded with at least this level of agreement.
However, measuring intercoder
reliability by percentage of agreement is a questionable
procedure, because this method
does not take account of agreement occurring by chance. With
this consideration in mind,
Rorschach researchers began in the late 1990s to assess
intercoder reliability with two
statistics that correct for chance agreements, kappa and
intraclass correlation coefficients

Major Rorschach indices of psychological disturbance include
the X-% (an index of im-
paired reality testing) and the WSum6 (an index of disordered
thinking). If X-% and WSum6
are valid measures of disturbance, they should increase in linear
fashion across these four
reference groups-and they do, as shown by the Exner (2001,
chap. 11) reference data.
A second example of construct validity demonstrated by the
normative reference data
concerns developmental changes in young people. The
previously noted increasing stability
of Rorschach structural variables from childhood into
adolescence, consistent with the grad-
ual consolidation of personality characteristics, is a case in
point. Among specific changes
occurring with maturation, young people are known to become
less self-centered (less
egocentric) and increasingly capable of moderating their affect
(less emotionally in-
tense). The RIM Egocentricity Index is conceptualized as a
measure of self-centeredness,
and the balance between presumed indices of relatively mature
emotionality (FC)
and relatively immature emotionality (CF) is conceptualized as
an indication of affect
moderation.
If these variables are valid measures of what they are posited to
measure, their average
values should change in the expected direction among children
and adolescents at different
ages-and they do. In the CS reference data, the mean
Egocentricity Index of .67 at age
6 decreases in almost linear fashion to .43 at age 16, which is

just slightly higher than the
adult mean of .40. The mean for FC increases steadily over time
from 1.11 at age 6 to 3.43
at age 16 (compared with an adult mean of 3.56), while the
mean for CF decreases from
3.51 to 2.78 between age 6 and 16 (the adult mean is 2.41).
The present chapter has been concerned mainly with the
Rorschach assessment of adults
and older adolescents. In closing the chapter, it is important to
note that the RIM can also
be used to good effect in evaluating children and early
adolescents. Assessors working with
young people will profit from consulting Erdberg (2007), Exner
and Weiner (1995), and
Leichtman ( 1996) in this regard.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. C. (1997). Custody
evaluations in practice: A survey of experienced
professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology, 28, 137-145.
Acklin, M. W., McDowell, C. J., Verschell, M. S., & Chan, D.
(2000). Interobserver agreement,
intraobserver agreement, and the Rorschach Comprehensive
System. Journal of Personality
Allard, G., & Faust, D. (2000). Errors in scoring objective
personality tests. Assessment, 7, 119-129.
Allen, J., & Dana, R.H. (2004). Methodological issues in cross-
cultural and multicultural Rorschach
research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 189-206.

Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., &
Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of
psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists.
87, 84-94.
Archer, R. P., & Newsom, C. R. (2000). Psychological test
usage with adolescent clients: Survey
update. Assessment, 7, 227-235.
Armstrong, J., & Kaser-Boyd, N. (2004). Projective assessment
of psychological trauma. In M. J.
Hilsenroth & D. L Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook
ofpsychological assessment: Vol. 2.
Personality assessment (pp. 500-512). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Aronow, E., & Reznikoff, M. (1976). Rorschach content
interpretation. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Aronow, E., Reznikoff, M., & Moreland, K. L. (1994). The
Rorschach technique. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Auslander, L.A., Perry, W., & Jeste, D. V. (2002). Assessing
disturbed thinking and cognition using
the Ego Impairment Index in older schizophrenic patients:
Paranoid vs. nonparanoid distinction.
Schizophrenia Research, 53, 199-207.
Beck, S. J. (1930a). Personality diagnosis by means of the
Rorschach test. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 1, 81-88.

Beck, S. J. (1930b). The Rorschach test and personality
diagnosis. American Journal of Psychiatry,
10, 19-52.
Beck, S. J. (1937). Introduction to the Rorschach method:
American Orthopsychiatric Association
Monograph I. New York: American Orthopsychiatric
Association.
Beck, S. J. (1944). Rorschach's test: Vol. I. Basic processes.
New York: Grune & Stratton.
Blais, M. A., Hilsenroth, M. J., Castlebury, F., Fowler, J. C., &
Baity, M. R. (2001). Predicting
DSM-IV Cluster B personality disorder criteria from MMPI-2
and Rorschach data: A test of
incremental validity. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 76,
150--168.
Blatt, S. J., & Ford, R. Q. (1994). Therapeutic change. New
York: Plenum Press.
Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Diagnostic test
usage by forensic psychologists in
emotional injury cases. Professional Psychology, 30, 253-259.
Bornstein, R. F. (1999). Criterion validity of objective and
projective dependency tests: A meta-
analytic assessment of behavioral prediction. Psychological
Bornstein, R. F., & Masling, J.M. (2005). The Rorschach Oral
Dependency scale. In R. F. Bornstein &
J.M. Masling (Eds.), Scoring the Rorschach: Seven validated
systems (pp. 135-158). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.
Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1995). Psychological test use in
criminal forensic evaluations. Professional
Buros, 0. K. (Ed.). (1974). Tests in print II. Highland Park, NJ:
Gryphon.
Annual Review ofPsychology, 47, 87-111.
Camara, W., Nathan, J., & Puente, A. (2000). Psychological test
usage: Implications in professional
psychology. Professional Psychology, 31, 141-154.
Cashel, M. L. (2002). Child and adolescent psychological
assessment: Current clinical practices and
the impact of managed care. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 33, 446-453.
Clarkin, J. F., & Levy, K. N. (2004). The influence of client
variables on psychotherapy. In M. J.
Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield's handbook ofpsychotherapy
and behavior change (5th ed.,
pp. 194-226). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Clemence, A., & Handler, L. (2001). Psychological assessment
on internship: A survey of training
directors and their expectations for students. Journal
Dao, T. K., & Prevatt, F. (2006). A psychometric evaluation of
the Rorschach Comprehensive System's
Perceptual Thinking Index. Journal ofPersonality Assessment,

86, 180--189.
Elfhag, K., Barkeling, B., Carlsson, A. M., & Rossner, S.
(2003). Microstructure of eating behavior
associated with Rorschach characteristics in obesity. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 81,
40--50.
Elfhag, K., Ri:issner, S., Lindgren, T., Andersson, I., &
Carlsson, A. M. (2004). Rorschach personality
predictors of weight loss with behavior modification in obesity
treatment.Journal ofPersonality
Assessment, 83, 293--305.
Eprhaim, D. (2000). Culturally relevant research and practice
with the Rorschach Comprehensive Sys-
tem. In R. H. Dana (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural and
multicultural personality assessment
(pp. 303-328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Erard, R. E. (2005). What the Rorschach can contribute to child
custody and parenting time evalua-
tions. Journal of Child Custody, 2, 119-142.
Erdberg, P. (2007). Using the Rorschach with children. In S. R.
Smith & L. Handler (Eds.), The
clinical assessment of children and adolescents (pp. 139-147).
Erdberg, P., & Shaffer, T. W. (2001, March). International
Symposium on Rorschach nonpatient data:
Worldwide findings. Symposium conducted at the annual

meeting of the Society for Personality
Assessment, Philadelphia.
Ewing, C. P. (2003). Expert testimony: Law and practice. In I.
B. Weiner (Editor-in-Chief) & A.
M. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.}, Handbook of psychology: Vol. II.
Forensic psychology (pp. 55-66).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Exner, J.E., Jr., (1969). The Rorschach systems. New York:
Grune & Stratton.
Exner, J. E., Jr., (1974). The Rorschach: A comprehensive
system. New York: Wiley.
Exner, J. E., Jr., (2001). A Rorschach workbook for the
comprehensive system (5th ed.). Asheville,
NC: Rorschach Workshops.
Exner, J. E., Jr., (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive
system: Vol. I. Basic foundations and
principles of interpretation (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Exner, J.E., Jr., & Andronikof-Sanglade, A. ( 1992). Rorschach
changes following brief and short-term
therapy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 59-71.
Exner, J.E., Jr., Armbruster, G. L., & Viglione, D. (2001). The
temporal stability of some Rorschach
features. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 474-482.
Exner, J.E., Jr., & Erdberg, P. (2005). The Rorschach: A
comprehensive system: Vol. 2. Advanced
interpretation (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Exner, J. E., Jr., Thomas, E. A., & Mason, B. (1985). Children's

Rorschachs: Description and
prediction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 13-20.
Exner, J.E., Jr., & Weiner, I. B. (1995). The Rorschach: A
comprehensive system: Vol. 3. Assessment
of children and adolescents (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Exner, J. E., Jr., & Weiner, I. B. (2003). Rorschach
interpretation assistance program, Version
5(RIAP5). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Fowler, J. C., Ackerman, S. J., Speanburg, S., Bailey, A.,
Blagys, M., & Conklin, A. C. (2004).
Personality and symptom change in treatment-refractory
inpatients: Evaluation of the phase
model of change using Rorschach, TAT, and DSM-IV Axis
V.Journal ofPersonality Assessment,
83, 306--322. .
Fowler, J. C., Brunnschweiler, B., Swales, S., & Brock, J.
(2005). Assessment of Rorschach depen-
dency measures in female inpatients diagnosed with borderline
disorder. Journal of Personality
Fowler, J.C., & Erdberg, P. (2005). The Mutuality of Autonomy
scale: An implicit measure of object
relations for the Rorschach Inkblot Method. South African
Rorschach Journal, 2, 3-10.
Fowler, J.C., Piers, C., Hilsenroth, M. J., Holdwick, D. J., Jr., &
Padawer, J. R. (2001 ). The Rorschach
Suicide Constellation: Assessing various degrees oflethality.
76, 333-351.

Gacono, C. B. (Ed.). (2000). The clinical and forensic
assessment of psychopathy. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gacono, C. B., Evans, F. B., Kaser-Boyd, N., & Gacono, L.
(Eds.). (in press). Handbook offorensic
Rorschach psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gacono, C. B., & Meloy, J. R. (1994). Rorschach assessment of
aggressive and psychopathic per-
sonalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ganellen, R. J. (2005). Rorschach contributions to assessment
of suicide risk. In R. I. Yufit & D. Lester
(Eds.), Assessment, treatment, and prevention of suicidal
behavior (pp.93-119). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Garb, H. N. (1999). Call for a moratorium on the use of the
Rorschach Inkblot Test in clinical and
forensic settings. Assessment, 6, 311-318.
Garb, H. N., Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Grove, W. M., &
Stejskal, W. J. (2001). Toward a
resolution of the Rorschach controversy. Psychological
Goldstein, A. M., Morse, S. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (2003).
Evaluation of criminal responsibility. In I.
B. Weiner (Editor-in-Chief) & A. M. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.),
Handbook of psychology: Vol. 11.
Forensic psychology (pp. 381-406). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Greenberg, S. A. (2003). Personal injury examinations in torts
for emotional distress. In I. B. Weiner
(Editor-in-Chief) & A. M. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of
psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic
psychology (pp. 233-257). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Greenway, P., & Milne, L. C. (2001 ). Rorschach tolerance and
control of stress measures D andAdjD:
Beliefs about how well subjective states and reactions can be
controlled. European Journal of
Grizjnner!Z!d, C. (2003). Temporal stability in the Rorschach
method: A meta-analytic review. Journal
Grizjnnerizjd, C. (2006). Reanalysis of the Grizjnnerizjd.
(2003). Rorschach temporal stability meta-
analysis set. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 86, 222-225.
Grove, W. M., & Barden, R. C. (1999). Protecting the integri ty
of the legal system: The admissibility
of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho
analysis. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 5, 224-242.
Guamaccia, V., Dill, C. A., Sabatino, S., & Southwick, S.
(2001). Scoring accuracy using the
Comprehensive System for the Rorschach. Journal ofPersonality
Hamel, M., Shaffer, T. W., & Erdberg, P. (2000). A study of
nonpatient preadolescent Rorschach
protocols. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 75, 280-294.

Handler, L., & Clemence, A. J. (2005). The Rorschach
Prognostic Rating scale. In R. F. Bornstein &
J.M. Masling (Eds.), Scoring the Rorschach: Seven validated
systems (pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hartmann, E., Norbech, P. B., & Grizjnnerizjd, C. (2006).
Psychopathic and nonpsychopathic violent of-
fenders on the Rorschach: Discriminative features and
comparisons with schizophrenic inpatient
and university student samples. Journal ofPersonality
Hartmann, E., Sunde, T., Kristensen, W., & Martinussen, M.
(2003). Psychological measures as
predictors of military training performance. Journal
Hess, A. K. (2006). Serving as an expert witness. In I. B.
Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of
forensic psychology (3rd ed., pp. 652-700). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Hiller, J. B., Rosenthal, R., Bornstein, R. F., Berry, D. T. R., &
Brunner-Neuleib, S. (1999). A
comparative meta-analysis of Rorschach validity. Psychological
Hilsenroth, M. J., & Stricker, G. (2004). A consideration of
attacks upon psychological assessment
instruments used in forensic settings: Rorschach as exemplar.
83, 141-152.
Hogan, T. P. (2005). 50 widely used psychological tests. In G.
P. Koocher, J.C. Norcross, & S. S. Hill

III (Eds.), Psychologists' desk reference (2nd ed., pp. 101-104).
New York: Oxford University
Press.
Holt, R.R. (2005). The Pripro scoring system. In R. F. Bornstein
& J.M. Masling (Eds.), Scoring the
Rorschach: Seven validated systems (pp. 191-236). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Holzman, P. S., Levy, D. L., & Johnston, M. H. (2005). The use
of the Rorschach technique for
assessing formal thought disorder. In R. F. Bornstein & J. M.
Masling (Eds.), Scoring the
Rorschach: Seven validated systems (pp. 55-96). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hunsley, J., & Bailey, J.M. (1999). The clinical utility of the
Rorschach: Unfulfilled promises and
an uncertain future. Psychological Assessment, 11, 266-277.
Huprich, S. K. (Ed.). (2006). Rorschach assessment of the
personality disorders. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ilonen, T., Taiminen, T., Karlsson, H., Lauerma, H., Leinonen,
K.-M., Wallenius, E., et al. (1999).
Diagnostic efficiency of the Rorschach schizophrenia and
depression indices in identifying
first-episode schizophrenia and severe depression. Psychiatry
Research, 87, 183-193.
Janson, H., & Stattin, H. (2003). Predictions of adolescent and

adult delinquency from childhood
Rorschach ratings. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 81, 51-63.
Johnston, J. R., Walters, M. G., & Olesen, N. W. (2005).
Clinical ratings of parenting capacity
and Rorschach protocols of custody-disputing parents: An
exploratory study. Journal of Child
Custody, 2, 159-178.
Kelly, F. D. (1999). The psychological assessment ofabused and
traumatized children. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kleiger, J. H. (1999). Disordered thinking and the Rorschach.
Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Klopfer, B., Ainsworth, M. D., Klopfer, W. G., & Holt, R.R.
(1954). Developments in the Rorschach
technique: Vol. I. Technique and theory. Yonkers-on-Hudson,
NY: World Books.
Klopfer, B., & Kelley, D. M. (1942). The Rorschach technique.
Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World
Books.
Klopfer, B., Kirkner, F., Wisham, W., & Baker, G. (1951).
Rorschach Prognostic Rating scale.Journal
ofProjective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 15, 425-
428.
Leichtman, M. (1996). The Rorschach: A developmental
perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic
Press.
Lerner, P. M. (1998). Psychoanalytic perspective on the
Rorschach. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

Lerner, P. M. (2005). Defense and its assessment: The Lerner
Defense scale. In R. F. Bornstein & J.
M. Masling (Eds.), Scoring the Rorschach: Seven validated
systems (pp. 237-270). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Lilienfeld, S. 0., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The
scientific status of projective techniques.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 27-66.
Luxenberg, T., & Levin, P. (2004). The role of the Rorschach in
the assessment and treatment of
trauma. In J. P. Wilson & T. M. Keane (Eds.), Assessing
psychological trauma and PTSD (2nd
ed., pp. 190--225). New York: Guilford Press.
McCann, J. T. (1998). Defending the Rorschach in court: An
analysis of admissibility using legal and
professional standards. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 70,
125-144.
McCann, J. T. (2004). Projective assessment of personality in
forensic settings. In M. Hersen (Editor-
in-Chief), M. J. Hilseroth, & D. L. Segal (Vol. Eds.),
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McCann, J. T., & Evans, F. B. (in press). Admissibility of the
Rorschach. In C. B. Gacono, F. B. Evans,
N. Kaser-Boyd, & L. Gacono (Eds.), Handbook offorensic
Rorschach psychology. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2006). National character

and personality. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15, 156--161.
McGrath, R. E. (2003). Enhancing accuracy in observational
test scoring: The Comprehensive System
as a case example. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 81, 104-
110.
McGrath, R. E., Pogge, D. L., Stokes, J. M., Cragnolino, A.,
Zaccaria, M., Hayman, J., et al. (2005).
Field reliability of Comprehensive System scoring in an
adolescent inpatient sample. Assessment,
12, 199-209. [11]
Meloy, J. R. (2007). The authority of the Rorschach: An update.
In C. B. Gacono, F. B. Evans, N.
Kaser-Boyd, & L. Gacono (Eds.), Handbook of forensic
Rorschach psychology (pp. 79-87).
Meloy, J. R., Hansen, T., & Weiner, I. B. (1997). Authority of
the Rorschach: Legal citations in the
past 50 years. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 69, 53-62.
Meyer, G. J. (1997a). Assessing reliability: Critical corrections
for a critical examination of the
Rorschach Comprehensive System. Psychological Assessment,
9, 480-489.
Meyer, G. J. (1997b). Thinking clearly about reliability: More
critical corrections regarding the
Rorschach Comprehensive System. Psychological Assessment,

9, 495-598.
Meyer, G. J. (2000). The incremental validity of the Rorschach
Prognostic Rating scale over the
MMPI Ego Strength scale and IQ. Journal ofPersonality
Meyer, G. J. (2001). Evidence to correct misperceptions about
Rorschach norms. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 8, 389-396.
Meyer, G. J. (2002). Exploring possible ethnic differences and
bias in the Rorschach Comprehensive
System. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 78, 104-129.
Meyer, G. J. (2004). The reliability and validity of the
Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT) compared to other psychological and medical procedures:
An analysis of systematically
gathered evidence. In M. Hersen (Editor-in-Chief), M.
Hilsenroth, & D. Segal (Vol. Eds.),
Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment: Vol. 2.
Personality assessment (pp.
315-342). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Meyer, G. J., & Archer, R. P. (2001). The hard science of
Rorschach research: What do we know and
where do we go? Psychological Assessment, 13, 486--502.
Meyer, G. J., & Handler, L. (1997). The ability of the
Rorschach to predict subsequent outcome:
Meta-analysis of the Rorschach Prognostic Rating scale. Journal
ofPersonality Assessment, 69,
1-38.
Meyer, G. J., Hilsenroth, M. J., Baxter, D., Exner, J.E., Jr.,

Fowler, J.C., Pers, C. C., et al. (2002). An
examination of interrater reliability for scoring the Rorschach
Comprehensive System in eight
data sets. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 78, 219-274.
Meyer, J. G., Mihura, J. L., & Smith, B. L. (2005). The
interclinician reliability of Rorschach
interpretation in four data sets. Journal ofPersonality
Meyer, G. J., & Viglione, D. J. (in press). Scientific status of
the Rorschach. In C. B. Gacono, F.
B. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L. Gacono (Eds.), Handbook
offorensic Rorschach psychology.
Monahan, J. (2003). Violence risk assessment. In I. B. Weiner
(Editor-in-Chief) & A. M. Goldstein
(Vol. Ed.), Handbook ofpsychology: Vol. 11. Forensic
psychology (pp. 527-540). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Muniz, J., Prieto, G., Almeida, L., & Bartram, D. (1999). Test
use in Spain, Portugal, and Latin
American countries. European Journal ofPsychological
Ogawa, T. (2004). Developments of the Rorschach in Japan: A
brief introduction. South African
Rorschach Journal, 1, 40--45.
Perry, W. (2001). Incremental validity of the Ego Impairment
Index: A reexamination of Dawes
(1999). Psychological Assessment, 13, 403-407.
Phillips, L., & Smith, J. G. (1953). Rorschach interpretation:

Advanced technique. New York: Grune
& Stratton.
Piotrowski, Z. A. (1957). Perceptanalysis. New York:
Macmillan.
Presley, G., Smith, C., Hilsenroth, M., & Exner, J. (2001).
Clinical utility of the Rorschach with
African Americans. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 78, I 04-
129.
Quinnell, F. A., & Bow, J. N. (2001 ). Psychological tests used
in child custody evaluations. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 19, 491-501.
Rapaport, D., Gill, M., & Schafer, R. (1968). Diagnostic
psychological testing (Rev. ed.). New York:
International Universities Press. (Original work published 1946)
Ritsher, J. B. (2004). Association of Rorschach and MMPI
psychosis indicators and schizophrenia-
spectrum diagnoses in a Russian clinical sample. Journal
ofPersonality Assessment, 38, 46--63.
Ritzier, B. (2001). Multicultural usage of the Rorschach. In L.
Suzuki, J. Ponterotto, & P. Meller
(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment (pp. 237-252).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ritzler, B. (2004). Cultural applications of the Rorschach,
apperception tests, and figure drawings.
In M. Hersen (Editor-in-Chief), M. J. Hilsenroth, & D. L. Segal
(Vol. Eds.), Comprehensive

handbook ofpsychological assessment: Vol. 2. Personality
assessment (pp. 573-585). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Ritzier, B., Erard, R., & Pettigrew, T. (2002). Protecting the
integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses:
A reply to Grove and Barden (1999) re: The admissibility of
testimony under Daubert/Kumho
analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 8(2), 201-
215.
Rorschach, H. (1942). Psychodiagnostics: A diagnostic test
based on perception. Bern, Switzerland:
Hans Huber. (Original work published 1921)
Rosenthal, R., Hiller, J. G., Bornstein, R. F., Berry, D. T. R., &
Brunell-Neuleib, S. (2001). Meta-
analytic methods, the Rorschach, and the MMPI. Psychological
Schafer, R. (1948). Clinical application ofpsychological tests.
New York: International Universities
Press.
Schafer, R. (1954). Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach
testing. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Schafer, R. (2006). My life in testing. Journal ofPersonali ty
Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., & Haroian, J. (1999). Current
nonpatient data for the Rorschach, WAIS,
and MMPI-2. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 73, 305-316.

Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., & Meyer, G. J. (Eds.). (2007).
International reference sample for
the Rorschach comprehensive system [Special issue]. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 89
(Suppl. I).
Sloane, P., Arsenault, L., & Hilsenroth, M. (2002). Use of the
Rorschach in the assessment of
war-related stress in military personnel. Rorschachiana, 25, 86--
122.
Smith, S., Baity, M. R., Knowles, E. S., & Hilsenroth, M. J.
(2001 ). Assessment of disordered thinking
in children and adolescents: The Rorschach Perceptual -Thinking
Index. Journal of Personality
Society for Personality Assessment. (2005). The status of the
Rorschach in clinical and forensic
practice: An official statement by the Board of Trustees of the
Society for Personality Assessment.
Stafford, K. P. (2003). Assessment of competence to stand trial.
In I. B. Weiner (Editor-in-Chief) & A.
M. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.), Handbook ofpsychology: Vol. 11.
Forensic psychology (pp. 359-380).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Stedman, J., Hatch, J., & Schoenfeld, L. (2000). Preinternship
preparation in psychological testing
and psychotherapy: What internship directors say they expect.
Professional Psychology, 31,
321-326.
Stricker, G., & Gooen-Piels, J. (2004). Projective assessment of

object relations. In M. Hersen (Editor-
in-Chief), M. J. Hilsenroth, & D. L. Segal (Vol. Eds.),
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Urist, J. (1977). The Rorschach test and the assessment of
object relations. Journal of Personality
Viglione, D. J. (1999). A review of recent research addressing
the utility of the Rorschach. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 11, 251-265.
Viglione, D. J. (2002). Rorschach coding solutions: A reference
guide for the comprehensive system.
San Diego, CA: Author.
Viglione, D. J., & Hilsenroth, M. J. (2001 ). The Rorschach:
Facts, fictions, and future. Psychological
Viglione, D. J., Perry, W., & Meyer, G. (2003). Refinements in
the Rorschach Ego Impairment
Index incorporating the human representational variable.
Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 81,
149-156.
Viglione, D. J., & Taylor, N. (2003). Empirical support for
interrater reliability of Rorschach com-
prehensive system coding. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59,
111-121.
Weiner, I. B. (1996). Some observations on the validity of the
Rorschach Inkblot Method. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 8, 206--213.

Weiner, I. B. (1998). Principles ofpsychotherapy (2nd ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Weiner, I. B. (1999). Contemporary perspectives on Rorschach
assessment. European Journal of
Weiner, I. B. (2001a). Advancing the science of psychological
assessment: The Rorschach Inkblot
Method as exemplar. Psychological Assessment, 13, 423-432.
Weiner, I. B. (2001b). Considerations in collecting Rorschach
reference data. Journal ofPersonality
Weiner, I. B. (2003a). Prediction and postdiction in clinical
decision making. Clinical Psychology,
10, 335-338.
Weiner, I. B. (2003b). Principles ofRorschach interpretation
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weiner, I. B. (2004a). Monitoring psychotherapy with
performance-based measures of personality
functioning. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 323-331.
Weiner, I. B. (2004b). Rorschach assessment: Current status. In
M. Hersen (Editor-in-Chief), M. J.
Hilsenroth, & D. L. Segal (Vol. Eds.), Comprehensive handbook
of psychological assessment:
Vol. 2. Personality assessment (pp. 343-355). Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.
Weiner, I. B. (2005a). Rorschach assessment in child custody
cases. Journal of Child Custody, 2,
99-120.
Weiner, I. B. (2005b). Rorschach Inkblot Method. In M.
Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological
testing in treatment planning and outcome evaluation (3rd ed.,
Vol. 3, pp. 553-588). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Weiner, I. B. (2006). The Rorschach Inkblot Method. In R. P.
Archer (Ed.), Forensic uses of clinical
assessment instruments (pp. 181-207). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weiner, I. B. (2007). Rorschach assessment in forensic cases. In
A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic
psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles (pp. 127-
153). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Weiner, I. B. (in press). Presenting and defending Rorschach
testimony. In C. B. Gacono, F. B. Evans,
N. Kaser-Boyd, & L. Gacono (Eds.), Handbook offorensic
Rorschach psychology. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Weiner, I. B., & Exner, J.E., Jr. (1991). Rorschach changes in
long-term and short-term psychotherapy.
Weiner, I. B., Exner, J. E., Jr., & Sciara, A. (1996). Is the
Rorschach welcome in the courtroom?
Wood, J. M., & Lilienfeld, S. 0. (1999). The Rorschach Inkblot

Tests: A case of overstatement?
Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Garb, H. N., & Lilienfeld, S. 0.
(2001). The misperception of
psychopathology: Problems with the norms of the
comprehensive system. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 8, 360-373.
Zapf, P. A., Golding, S. L., & Roesch, R. (2006). Criminal
responsibility and the insanity defense.
In I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook offorensic
psychology (3rd ed., pp. 332-364).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Zapf, P. A., & Roesch, R. (2006). Competency to stand trial. In
I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.),
Handbook offorensic psychology (3rd ed., pp. 305-331).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
a-345-354a-395-405a-416-423
Chapter 10
REVISED NEO PERSONALITY
INVENTORY
The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI; Costa & McCrae,
1985) and the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992)
measure five broad domains
or dimensions of personality in normal adults. Three of these
domain scales, measur-
ing Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), and Openness to
Experience (0), have been re-

searched for years and serve as the basis of the name for the
original Inventory (NEO). The
NEO PI also includes two additional domains, Agreeableness
(A) and Conscientiousness
( C). These five domains allow for a comprehensive description
of personality in normal
adults. The NEO PI-R consists of five global domains and six
facets for each domain (see
Table 10.1).
Table 10.2 provides the general information on the NEO PI-R.
HISTORY
A long line of research on five-factor models of personality
serve as the basis for the
NEO PI-R, most of which is beyond the scope of this Handbook
(cf. Wiggins, 1996). The
rather common finding in the 1980s of five factors in
personality research, served as the
major impetus for a multitude of studies based on a lexical
analysis of words, personality
traits, interpersonal theory, or ratings of schoolchildren's
behavior. Despite critiques that
five-factor models were atheoretical, they have persisted and
gained widespread acceptance
in the field of personality research. A significant impetus for
this widespread acceptance
of five-factor models is the prolific work of Costa and McCrae
and their publication of the
NEO PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985) and NEO PI-R (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). A bibliography
(Costa & McCrae, 2003) available on the website for
Psychological Assessment Resources
(www.parinc.com), the publisher of the NEO PI-R, is nearly 60
pages.

Both the NEO PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985) and the NEO PI-R
(Costa & McCrae, 1992)
have two forms: Form R (Rater) and Form S (Self). Form R is to
be completed by a
knowledgeable other who is well acquainted with the person and
Form S is to be completed
by the person being evaluated. Virtually all the research on the
NEO PI and NEO PI-R
has been conducted with Form S and it is the main form that
will be discussed here. More
frequent use of Form R in conjunction with Form S seems well
warranted because of the
important perspective it can provide on the person being
evaluated. At a minimum, the
reader needs to be aware of the existence of Form R so as to
consider the possibility of its
use.
315
www.parinc.com
316 Self-Report Inventories
Table 10.1 Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)
domain and facet scales
Domain Facets
N (Neuroticism) NJ Anxiety
N2 Angry Hostility
N3 Depression
N4 Self-Consciousness
NS Impulsiveness

N6 Vulnerability
E (Extraversion) El Warmth
E2 Gregariousness
E3 Assertiveness
E4 Activity
ES Excitement-Seeking
E6 Positive Emotions
0 (Openness) OJ Fantasy
02 Aesthetics
03 Feelings
04 Actions
05 Ideas
06 Values
A (Agreeableness) Al Trust
A2 Straightforwardness
A3 Altruism
A4 Compliance
AS Modesty
A6 Tender-Mindedness
C (Conscientiousness) Cl Competence
C2 Order
CJ Dutifulness
C4 Achievement Striving
cs Self -Discipline
C6 Deliberation
NEO PI (First Edition)
The NEO PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985) consisted of five domains:
Neuroticism (N); Ex-
traversion (E); Openness (0); Agreeableness (A); and
Conscientiousness (C). The name

of the inventory-NEO-was formed from the initial letter of the
first three names in a
concession to an early version of the inventory that contained
only those three domains.
These five domains measure the broad dimensions of
personality in normal adults. The first
three domains (Neuroticism [NJ; Extraversion [E], Openness
[0]) also had six facets or
subscales for each domain.
Revised NEO Personality Inventory 317
Table 10.2 Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)
Authors:
Published:
Edition:
Publisher:
Website:
Age range:
Reading level:
Administration formats:
Languages:
Number of items:
Response format:
Administration time:
Primary scales:
Additional scales:
Hand scoring:
General texts:
Computer interpretation:
Costa & McRae
1992

Revised
www.parinc.com
18+
6th grade
Paper/pencil, computer, CD, cassette
9 published and 25 validated translations
240
5-point Likert scale
20-30 minutes
5 Domains and 30 Facets
None
2-part carbonless Answer Sheet (self-scoring)
None
Psychological Assessment Resources (Costa & McRae)
NEO PI-R (Revised Edition)
The NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) consists of the same
five domains as in the NEO
PI. There are only two minor differences between the NEO PI-
Rand the NEO PI. First,
the facet scales for Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness
(C) were added; they had not
been available on the NEO PI. Second, 10 (4.2%) items were
replaced to allow for more
accurate measurement of several facets.
Although the NEO PI-R is the focus of this chapter, two other
forms of the NEO need to
be mentioned: NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa &
McCrae, 1992); and NEO
PI-3 (McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005). Each of these other
forms of the NEO PI-R is
described in turn. This description can be very brief for both of
them because they retain

the essential features of the NEO PI-R.
NEO Five-Factor Inventory
The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is essentially an
authorized short form of the
NEO PI-R. It consists of 60 items from the NEO PI-R that are
used only to score the
five domains: Neuroticism (N); Extraversion (£); Openness (0);
Agreeableness (A); and
Conscientiousness (C). It does not contain the items for
assessing the facets within each
domain. The NEO-FFI is designed for use in circumstances in
which time is too limited
to present the entire NEO PI-R or only scores on the five
domains are required. All the
information provided on the domains for the NEO PI-R will
apply to the NEO-FFI so it
does not need to be discussed explicitly.
NEOP/-3
McCrae et al. (2002) identified 30 items on the NEO PI-R
(Costa & McCrae, 1992)
that were not endorsed by at least 2% of nearly 2,000
adolescents. A number of these
www.parinc.com
30 items contained words that adolescents, and even some
adults, might not understand.
An additional 18 items were identified that had item-total scores

on the facet scales less
than .30. Alternative items were developed for these 48 items
and McCrae et al. (2005)
found acceptable replacements for 37 of them. The original
version of the other 11 items
was retained on the NEO PI-3. The items on the NEO Pl-3 are
easier to read than those on
the NEO PI-R and the NEO PI-3 can be used for adolescents 12
years of age and older.
Further research currently is being conducted to determine
whether the NEO Pl-3 can be
considered as a replacement for the NEO PI-Rat all ages.
The entire December 2000 issue of the journal Assessment was
devoted to the NEO
PI-R. Anyone who is using the NEO PI-R should review this
issue to get a better idea of
the broad extent and wide nature of its usage.
ADMINISTRATION
The first issue in the administration of the NEO PI-R is
ensuring that the individual is
invested in the process. Taking a few extra minutes to answer
any questions the individual
has about why the NEO PI-R is being administered and how the
results will be used will pay
excellent dividends. The examiner should work diligently to
make the assessment process
a collaborative activity with the individual to obtain the desired
information. This issue of
therapeutic assessment (Finn, 1996; Fischer, 1994) was covered
in more depth in Chapter 2
(pp. 43--44 ). The transparent nature of the items on the NEO
PI-R and the lack of extensive

means for assessing the validity of item endorsement ( see later
section in this chapter) make
the task of getting the individual appropriately engaged in
completing the NEO PI-Rall the
more important.
Reading level is not a crucial factor in determining whether a
person can complete the
NEO PI-R. First, the reading level of the NEO PI-R is the sixth
grade. Second, the exam-
iner may read the items to individuals whose reading abilities
are limited and record the
responses (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 5). The NEO PI-R is the
only self-report inventory
discussed in this Handbook that allows the examiner to read the
items to the individu-
als. All other self-report inventories explicitly discourage or
forbid this procedure (see
Chapter 5).
SCORING
Scoring the NEO PI-R is relatively straightforward either by
hand or computer. If the NEO
PI-R is administered by computer, the computer automatically
scores it. If the individual's
responses to the items have been placed on an answer sheet,
these responses can be entered
into the computer by the clinician for scoring or they can be
hand scored. If the clinician
enters the item responses into the computer for scoring, they
should be double entered so
that any data entry errors can be identified.

One of the advantages of computer scoring is that the factor
score for each domain is
computed directly. The factor scores can be calculated for the
domains using the formulas
presented in the Manual (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 8), and it is
recommended that
researchers use the factor scores. "In most cases, the domain
scale scores are a good
approximation to factor scores, and it is probably not worth the
effort to apply these
formulas by hand to individual cases" (Costa & McCrae, 1992,
p. 7).
The NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the Personality
Assessment Inventory (PAI:
Morey, 1991) are the only self-report inventories reviewed in
this Handbook that do not
use "true/false" items. Both of these inventories have the same
publisher (Psychological
Assessment Resources), and that may account for not using
"true/false" items. The NEO
PI-R uses a five-point Likert scale ranging from SD (Strongly
Disagree), D (Disagree),
N (Neutral), A (Agree), to SA (Strongly Agree). These potential
response options always
are presented in this same order on the answer sheet. When SD
(Strongly Disagree) is the
scored direction for a specific item, the response options are
scored as 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0. When
SA (Strongly Agree) is the scored direction, the preceding five

response options are scored
as 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4. Thus, the total raw score on each eight-item
facet scale can range from
0 to 32. The total score on a domain, each of which consists of
six facet scales, can range
from Oto 192, but the norm tables for adults are truncated at 25
and 172 (Costa & McCrae,
1992, Appendix C, p. 79).
The first step in hand scoring is to examine the answer sheet
carefully and indicate
omitted items and double-marked items by drawing a line
through all five responses to
these items with brightly colored ink. Also, cleaning up the
answer sheet is helpful and
facilitates scoring. Responses that were changed need to be
erased completely if possible,
or clearly marked with an "X" so that the clinician is aware that
this response has not been
endorsed by the client.
The answer sheet for the NEO PI-R is self-scoring, that is, no
templates or overlays are
required for scoring. Instead the top page of the answer sheet is
removed and each row of
items corresponds to one of the facets for each of the domains.
The facets are in numerical
order within each domain and the domains are in the order:
Neuroticism (N); Extraversion
{£); Openness (0); Agreeableness (A); and Conscientiousness
(C). The raw score for each
facet is the sum of the circled numbers on its row. The sum of
the marked scores for the
first row is facet N 1, the sum of the second row is facet El, and
so on. Once the six facet
scores have been calculated for each domain, they are summed

to create the raw score for
each domain. Thus, the sum of facets NJ, N2, N3, N4, N5,
andN6 becomes the raw score
for domain N. These raw scores for each domain are entered
into the corresponding box at
the bottom of the answer sheet.
Plotting the profile is the next step in the scoring process. There
are two profile forms
that can be used with Form S: adults (21 years of age and older)
and college (17 to 20).
Profiles are plotted separately for men and women with each of
these forms and are on
opposite sides of the same page. The college-age profile form is
used for all individuals
aged 17 to 20 no matter whether they are in college. To remove
the ambiguity, it would be
more accurate to say that the "young adult" form should be used
for all individuals between
the ages of 17 and 20 and not call it a "college" profile form.
Once the correct profile form has been selected for the person's
age and gender, all the
raw scores from the answer sheet are transferred to the
appropriate column of the profile
sheet (see Figure 10.1). The first five columns on the profile
sheet are the five domains (N,
E, 0, A, and C) and then the six facets for each domain are
presented in order. The raw
score on each domain and facet is indicated by either circling
the number or marking it
with an "x." Once the individual's scores on the five domains
have been plotted, a solid
line is drawn to connect them. A similar procedure is followed
for each of the six facets.

80
II)
! so~-----.,,,::...-----------~~-----+-'l------+-l~--------~---+----1-
>.-----____:,,,,.~---4-----+-+----
o
u
(/)
1- 50
N E O C A N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 01 02 03
04 05 06 C1 C2 ca C4 C5 C6 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
NEO Domain and Facet Scales
Figure 10.1 NEO PI-R profile form for Domain and Facet
scales.
The scores for the domains are not connected to the facet
scores, and the sets of facets are
plotted separately; that is, there will be seven separate lines or
profiles on the form.
ASSESSING VALIDITY
One of the few areas of contention with the NEO PI-R is
whether validity scales are
necessary at all. The focus of this contention revolves around

three issues: (1) whether
responses to the NEO PI-R can be distorted and thus should be
assessed; (2) the prevalence
of such distortions within various groups of individuals; and (3)
whether the use of validity
scales to remove questionable profiles actually improves
correlates with external criteria.
Each of these issues is examined in tum.
A variety of studies have demonstrated that the NEO PI-R, like
all self-report instruments,
can be distorted by students in simulation designs either in a
positive (Ballenger, Caldwell-
Andrews, & Baer, 2001; Griffin, Hesketh, & Grayson, 2004) or
negative direction (Berry
et al., 2001).
It seems natural enough that distortions of responses occur less
frequently in normal
adults, where the NEO PI-R is used most often, because there is
little motivation for
doing so. The frequency of such distortions of responses also
should decrease when the
NEO PI-R is filled out anonymously, which typically happens in
research. Again, finding
that validity scales are not useful in normal adults and research
settings would seem to
reflect the nature of the participants and settings rather than the
usefulness of the validity
scales.
However, in clinical and personnel screening settings, it seems
probable that individuals

may distort their responses in some manner and the preceding
research demonstrates that
scores on the NEO PI-R can be distorted. In both clinical and
personnel selection settings,
the examiner is concerned with assessing potential distortions to
the domain and facet scales
in this specific individual, because it will affect the
interpretation of the scores. Thus, the
finding that validity scales may be more useful in clinical and
personnel selection settings
would seem to reflect the nature of the setting.
Several studies found that using the validity scales to remove
NEO PI-R profiles with
excessive distorted responses did not increase the relationship
with external correlates
(Piedmont, McCrae, Riemann, & Angleitner, 2000; Yang,
Bagby, & Ryder, 2000). These
findings typically occur when large groups of participants are
assessed and the relative
prevalence of such invalid profiles is relatively low.
Several studies also have found that using the validity scales to
remove NEO PI-R pro-
files with excessive distorted responses increased the
relationship with external correlates
(Caldwell-Andrews, Baer, & Berry, 2000; Young & Schinka,
2001). These findings typi-
cally occurred in clinical samples that would be more prone to
distort their responses and
in most cases were instructed to do so.
Another way of framing this contention is whether response

distortion is substance, a
characteristic of the individual such as some form of
psychopathology, or personality trait
or style, an effortful alteration of responses that may be
conscious or reflect lack of insight.
In true diplomatic fashion, Morey et al. (2002) concluded that
both substantive and stylistic
variance may be involved in determining responses to the NEO
PI-R in clinical patients.
Third, high scores on the Openness (0) domain are not
equivalent to intelligence,
but rather to divergent thinking and creativity. They also do not
imply that persons are
unprincipled or without values. They are willing to entertain
new ideas and can apply
these ideas conscientiously. In a similar manner, low scores on
the O domain do not mean
that persons are closed, defensive, or authoritarian, but rather
that they have a narrower
scope and intensity of interest. "Openness may sound healthier
or more mature to many
psychologists, but the value of openness or closedness depends
on the requirement of
the situation, and both open and closed individuals perform
useful functions in society"
(Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 15).
Fourth, high scores on the Agreeableness (A) domain may seem
to be more socially
preferable and psychologically healthier, and such persons are

generally easier with whom
to interact. However, some situations require that the person be
independent and skeptical
of what is happening and being too agreeable can actually be a
detriment. Dependent
Personality Disorder would be characterized by a high score on
the Agreeableness domain
to illustrate that it is not necessarily psychologically healthy.
Finally, high scores on the Conscientiousness (C) domain
reflect that the person is
more active in planning and organized in carrying out their
activities. These qualities
may be expressed in academic and occupational achievement or
in annoying, fastidious
behaviors. Low scores on the Conscientious domain do not
reflect that individuals are
without principles to govern their behavior, but rather they are
more lackadaisical in working
toward their goals.
The six facet scores for each domain are intended to flesh out
the general qualities that
have been described by the parent domain scale. Important
differences can be identified
between individuals who have similar scores on the parent
domain and a different pattern
of scores on the facet scales for that domain. Two individuals
with similar scores on
the Extraversion (£) domain, one of whom has primary
elevations on Activity (£4) and
Excitement Seeking (£5), while the other has primary elevations
on Assertiveness (£2) and
Positive Emotions (£6), are very different persons.
The interpretation of the facet scales, in addition to the domain

scales on the NEO PI-R,
is recommended in most cases, and particularly in clinical,
educational, and occupational
assessments. It is conceivable in research applications that only
the domain scales are
relevant to the issue under study, and consequently, there is no
reason to score and interpret
the facet scales. It is very important to consider computer
scoring the NEO PI-R when all
the domain and facet scales are to be interpreted, because of the
high probability of some
scoring error in making that many calculations. Computer
scoring also allows for the factor
score for each domain to be computed directly rather than using
the formulas presented in
the Manual (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 8) to estimate them.
APPLICATIONS
As a self-report inventory, the NEO PI-R is easily administered
in a wide variety of settings
and for a variety of purposes. It is the most widely used self-
report measure of personality
in countries around the world. Costa and McCrae (2003)
reported that there are 9 published
translations, 25 validated translations, 8 research translations,
and 3 more translations in
progress. This 60-page, single-spaced, bibliography illustrates
the variety of issues and
research on the NEO PI-Rand NEO-FFI. Any comprehensive
review of this literature is

beyond the scope of this Handbook.
There are numerous settings in which the NEO PI-R·is
appropriate for use: clinical,
educational, medical, organizational, and research. The NEO PI-
R is primarily used in
educational, organizational, and research settings. The NEO PI-
R is probably underutilized
in clinical and medical settings and would seem worthy of wider
usage in these settings.
The NEO PI-R comes out of a long line ofresearch on the five-
factor model of personality
described earlier (p. 315) and will not be reiterated. The use of
the NEO PI-R is discussed
for each of these other four settings in turn.
In clinical settings, the NEO PI-R can serve at least six useful
purposes. First, it can
provide a positive or nonpathological description of the person
that can compensate for
the heavy focus on psychopathology in most assessment tools
and techniques. Most of
the self-report inventories discussed in this Handbook have few,
if any, positive statements
to make about the person. Second, the focus on the more
positive aspects of the person
can help establish rapport and build the therapeutic alliance,
and serves as an easy means
of starting the feedback of the results of the assessment process
before getting into the
psychopathological issues. Third, there is a fairly extensive
literature on the use of the
NEO PI-R in the treatment of personality disorders (cf. Costa &
Widiger, 2002). Fourth,
the assessment of validity as described should be carried out
routinely in clinical settings

because of the higher probability of some type of response
distortion. Fifth, knowledgeable
others' ratings of the person using Form R can make an
important contribution to under-
standing him or her, particularly when there is some reason to
suspect that may be some
type ofresponse distortion. Finally, the NEO PI-R is neither a
diagnostic instrument nor a
measure of psychopathology and cannot be used as the sole
assessment tool or technique
in a clinical setting.
In educational settings, the NEO PI-R can be used in advising
students about personality
characteristics that will facilitate or impede their academic
progress. There are areas of
study, such as chemistry or accounting, where careful attention
to detail is mandatory for
success, and other areas, such as philosophy or literature, where
the focus is on more abstract
or larger conceptual issues, and careful attention to detail is
much less necessary. Persons
with high scores on the Conscientiousness (C) domain are more
likely to be successful in
chemistry or accounting, while persons with high scores on the
Openness ( 0) domain are
more likely to be successful in philosophy or literature. In
neither example is academic
success foreclosed in the other area, but these individuals may
have to work harder to
recognize how their natural personality style affects their
academic performance and they
may need to find methods for coping with them to increase the
probability of success. The
NEO PI-R also can be used in counseling students in academic
settings, which would be

considered a clinical setting and was discussed earlier.
In medical settings, the NEO PI-R can be used to identify
that might facilitate or impede treatment. The NEO PI-R will be
better accepted by medical
patients than other self-report inventories that have a heavy
focus on psychopathology.
Medical patients, particularly pain patients, are frequently upset
at the thought of psy-
chological assessment because they think that it implies that the
problem "is all in their
head."
Medical patients with high scores on the Neuroticism (N)
domain can alert the examiner
to review their background and history for the potential impact
of psychopathology on the
medical treatment. Medical patients with high scores on the
Conscientiousness ( C) domain
would be expected to be more likely to follow through on the
recommended steps for
treatment, particularly as the treatment process becomes more
complex or long-term. An
interesting line of research has used the NEO PI-R in predicting
risk for coronary heart
disease (cf. Costa, McCrae, & Dembroski, 1989), and Vollrath
and Torgersen (2002) used
the NEO PI-R to predict risky health behavior in college
students. Costa and McCrae (2003)
have listed the multiple areas in behavioral medicine in which

the NEO PI-R is being used.
In occupational settings, the NEO PI-R can be used to identify
that might facilitate or impede success in a specific occupation.
As with educational settings,
certain personality dimensions are more important in some
occupations than others. These
personality dimensions can be used in selecting candidates for
specific occupations or in ad-
vising individuals on what occupations might be better suited
for them. When the NEO PI-R
is used to select potential candidates for specific occupations,
the examiner must be aware
that because examinees may simulate their scores on the
appropriate domains, evaluating
the validity of the NEO PI-R will be important (cf. Griffin et
al., 2004).
When an occupation requires significant amounts of
interpersonal interactions, individ-
uals with higher scores on the Extraversion (E) and
Agreeableness (A) domains will be
more likely to be successful than individuals with lower scores
on these same domains.
Conversely, when an occupation requires a significant amount
of time by oneself, indi-
viduals with lower scores on the Extraversion and
Agreeableness domains will be more
likely to be successful than individuals with higher scores on
these same domains. Again,
the examiner is reminded that when individuals do not have the
optimal scores on the
personality dimensions for a specific occupation, their success
is not precluded, but they
need to be aware of the potential impact these personality

dimensions may have on their
performance.
Demographic Variables
Age
Specific norms are not provided by age for adults on the NEO
PI-R. There are some
differences in young adults ( <20) and a separate profile form
and norms are used for them.
The items on the NEO PI-3 are easier to read than those on the
NEO PI-R, and the NEO
PI-3 can be used for adolescents 12 years of age and older.
Further research currently is
being conducted to determine whether the NEO Pl-3 can be
considered as a replacement
for the NEO PI-Rat all ages.
Terracciano, McCrae, Brant, and Costa (2005) examined age
trends on the NEO PI-R
in a sample of nearly two thousand adults in the Baltimore
Longitudinal Study on Aging.
There was a gradual curvilinear decline of slightly over one-half
of a standard deviation in
the Neuroticism (N) and Extraversion (E) domains from age 30
to age 90. There was a linear
decline in the Openness (0) domain and linear increase in the
Agreeableness (A) domain.
There was a parabolic change in the Conscientiousness (C)
domain with scores increasing
until about age 70 and then slightly declining thereafter. All
these changes in adulthood
across the five domains were about one T score point per decade

or slightly more than one-
half of a standard deviation across the entire 60-year age span.
A cross-sectional analysis
of these data produced results that are similar to the
longitudinal analysis. Terracciano et al.
also provide similar information on all 30 of the facet scales on
the NEO PI-R.
Gender
Gender does not create any general issues in NEO Pl-R
interpretation because separate
norms (profile forms) are used for men and women. Any gender
differences in how individ-
uals responded to the items on each scale are removed when the
raw scores are converted
to T scores. Consequently, men and women with a T score of 60
(84th percentile) on
Agreeableness (A) are one standard deviation above the mean,
although women have a
slightly higher raw score (~142) than men (~136; Costa &
McCrae, 1992, Appendix C,
p. 79). Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae (2001) analyzed gender
differences in 26 cultures
and found that these gender differences were typically less than
one-half of a standard
deviation (5 T points), and most were closer to one-quarter of a

standard deviation, relative
to variations within gender.
Education
The potential effects of education have not been investigated in
any systematic manner on
the NEO PI-R, It is not apparent that such research would yield
any significant findings
given the ease with which the NEO PI-R is read and the similar
findings in factor structure
across multiple cultures.
Ethnicity
The effects of ethnicity per se on NEO PI-R performance have
not been studied, if ethnicity
as construed as being different from culture. However, the
prolific literature on the cross-
cultural use of the NEO PI-R is discussed briefly in the next
section.
Cross-Cultural Implementation
Costa and McCrae (2003) reported that there are 9 published
translations, 25 validated
translations, 8 research translations, and 3 more translations in
progress of the NEO PI-R.
The breadth of the use of the NEO PI-R across various cultures
can be seen by the fact
that there are 79 contributing members to the Personality
Profiles of Cultures Project who
represent 51 cultures from six continents (McCrae, Terracciano,
et al., 2005). This project is
looking at the aggregate personality profiles of different
cultures to assess whether they can

provide insight into cultural differences and the stereotypes of
national character (McCrae &
Terracciano, 2006). The robustness of the factor structure of the
NEO PI-R across these
various cultures not only speaks to the usefulness of the NEO
PI-R cross-culturally, but
it allows for comparisons to be made into the actual differences
in aggregate personality
profiles. As would be expected, stereotypes of national
character are erroneous (McCrae &
Terracciano, 2006), similar to the erroneous conceptualization
that all patients within a
specific diagnostic category are alike (pp. 60-61). There are
small differences in these
aggregate personality profiles across the different cultures, but
much larger variability
within cultures. These variations in aggregate personality
profiles appear to reflect real
differences that warrant further investigation.
In summary, it appears that demographic variables have
minimal impact on the
NEO PI-R profile in most individuals. The fact that the NEO PI-
R can be read to indi-
viduals and is available in many different languages makes it
applicability even broader.
Reliability
The NEO PI-R Manual (Costa & McCrae, 1992, table 5, p. 44)
reports the reliability

(coefficient alpha) data for 1,539 individuals for Form S.
Coefficient alpha ranged from
.56 to .81 for the facet scales and .86 to .92 for the domain
scales. The reliability data are
quite good for the domain scales that contain 48 items each. As
expected, the reliability
data are somewhat lower, though still very respectable, for the
facet scales that only have
eight items each.
A subset of the college students (N = 208) in the normative
sample for the NEO PI-R
were retested after an average of nearly 3 months with the NEO-
FFI, which allowed
determination of the reliability of the five domain scores. The
test-retest correlations ranged
from .75 to .83 across the five scales and averaged .79. The
standard error of measurement
is about 4 T points for the domain scales; that is, the
individual's true score on the domain
scales will be within ±4 T points two-thirds of the time.
Stability
There is impressive research on the long-term stability of NEO
PI-R scores. Costa and
McCrae (1988) reported that the stability coefficients over a 6-
year period in a large sample
of adults for the domains of N (Neuroticism), E (Extraversion),
and O (Openness) were .83,
.82, and .83, respectively. The stability coefficients over a 3-
year period for the domains of
A (Agreeableness) and C (Conscientiousness) were .63 and .79,
respectively. These stability

coefficients are higher and over a longer time period than for
any of the other self-report
inventories reviewed in this Handbook.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The voluminous literature on the five-factor model of
personality provides solid underpin-
nings for the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The
Personality Profiles of Cultures
Project that represents 51 cultures from six continents (McCrae,
Terracciano, et al., 2005)
shows how well regarded the NEO PI-R is internationally. More
widespread use of the
NEO PI-R in clinical and medical settings to provide a positive
perspective on the person
is warranted given the heavy bias toward psychopathology in
virtually all other assessment
tests and techniques. The existence of a parallel form for rating
of the person by a knowl-
edgeable other (Form R) is an invaluable source of information
any time there is reason
to suspect any type of response distortion that seems
particularly helpful in clinical and
medical settings.
REFERENCES
Bagby, R. M., Rector, N. A, Bindseil, K., Dickens, S. F.,
Levitan, R. D., & Kennedy, S. H. (1998).
Self-reports and informant ratings of personalities of depressed
outpatients. American Journal
ofPsychiatry, 155, 437-438.
Ballenger, J. F., Caldwell-Andrews, A., & Baer, R. A. (2001).
Effects of positive impression man-

agement on the NEO PI-Rina clinical population. Psychological
Berry, D. T. R., Bagby, R. M., Smerz, J., Rinaldo, J.C.,
Caldwell-Andrews, A., & Baer, R. A. (2001).
Effectiveness of NEO PI-R research validity scales for
discriminating analog malingering and
genuine psychopathology. Journal ofPersonality Assessment,
76, 496-516.
Caldwell-Andrews, A. (2001). Relationships between MMPI-2
validity scales and NEO PI-R exper-
imental validity scales in police candidates. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of
Kentucky.
Caldwell-Andrews, A., Baer, R. A., & Berry, D. T. R. (2000).
Effects of response sets on NEO
PI-R scores and their relation to external criteria. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 74, 472-
488.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality
Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1988). Personality in
adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of
self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO PI. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 853-863.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (2003). Bibliographyfor the
NEO Pl-Rand NEO FF!. Lutz, FL: Psy-
chological Assessment Resources. Available at
www3.parinc.com/uploads/pdfs/NEO_bib.pdf.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R.R., & Dembroski, T. M. (1989).
Agreeableness vs. antagonism: Explica-
tion of a potential risk factor for CHD. In A. Siegman & T. M.
Dembroski (Eds.), In search of
coronary-prone behavior: Beyond Type A (pp. 41-63). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001).
Gender differences in personality traits
across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,
81, 322-331.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Personality disorders
and the five-factor model ofpersonality
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Fiedler, E. R., Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2004). Traits
associated with personality disorders
and adjustment to military life: Predictive validity of self and
peer reports. Military Medicine,
169, 32-40.
Finn, S. (1996). Using the MMPI-2 as a therapeutic

intervention. Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota Press.
Fischer, C. T. (1994). Individualizing psychological assessment.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Griffin, B., Hesketh, B., & Grayson, D. (2004). Applicants
faking good: Evidence of bias in the NEO
PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1545-1558.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The
NEO PI-3: A more readable revised
NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment,
84, 260-270.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J.,
Terracciano, A., De Fruyt, F., et al.
(2002). Personality trait development from age 12 to age 18:
Longitudinal, cross-sectional, and
cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 1456-1468.
McCrae, R.R., & Terracciano, A. (2006). National character and
personality. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15, 156-161.
McCrae, R.R., Terracciano, A., & 79 Members of the
Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005).
Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits.
Journal of Personality and Social
Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory:
Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-
logical Assessment Resources.

Morey, L. C., Quigley, B. D., Sanislow, C. A., Skodol, A. E.,
McGlashan, T. H., Shea, M. T., et al.
(2002). Substance or style? An investigation of the NEO PI-R
validity scales. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 79, 583-599.
https://www3.parinc.com/uploads/pdfs/NEO_bib.pdf
Pauls, C. A., & Crost, N. W. (2005). Effects of different
instructional sets on the construct validity of
the NEO PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 297-
308.
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A.
(2000). On the invalidity of va-
lidity scales: Evidence from self-report and observer ratings in
volunteer samples. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582-593.
Schink.a, J. A., Kinder, B. N., & Kremer, T. (1997). Research
validity scales for the NEO PI-R:
Development and initial validation. Journal ofPersonality
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T., Jr.
(2005). Hierarchical linear modeling
analyses of the NEO PI-R scales in the Baltimore Longitudinal
Study of Aging. Psychology and
Aging, 20, 493-506.
Vollrath, M., & Torgersen, S. (2002). Who takes health risks? A
probe into eight personality types.
Personality and Individual Differences , 32, 1185-1198.

Wiggins, J. S. (Ed.). (1996). The five-factor model
ofpersonality. New York: Guilford Press.
Yang, J., Bagby, R. M., & Ryder, A.G. (2000). Response style
and the NEO PI-R: Validity scales
and spousal ratings in a Chinese psychiatric sample.
Young, M. S., & Schink.a, J. A. (2001). Research validity scales
for the NEO PI-R: Additional
evidence for reliability and validity. Journal ofPersonality
a-315-321a-336-342
Chapter 9
PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT
INVENTORY
The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI: Morey, 1991) is a
broadband measure of
the major dimensions of psychopathology found in Axis I
disorders and some Axis II
disorders of the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000). The PAI consists
of 4 validity, 11 clinical, 5 treatment consideration, and 2
interpersonal scales (see Table
9.1 ). There also are three or four subscales for 9 of the 11
clinical scales and for one treatment
consideration scale. Finally, a PAI Structural Summary provides
the tables for scoring and
profiles for plotting supplemental indices. Table 9.2 provides

the general information on
the PAI.
HISTORY
The PAI (Morey, 1991) was developed following a sequential,
construct-validation strategy.
The underlying construct for most of the clinical syndrome
scales based on the extant
research is multidimensional, and so the scale to measure each
clinical syndrome was to
be composed of several subscales. Once these component
subscales were identified, items
were written so that the content was directly relevant for each
one. Each item in the original
item pool of over 2,200 items then was rated by four individuals
for its appropriateness for
the specific subscale. Then four experts were asked to assign
times to the appropriate scale,
and items that did not reach 75% agreement either were dropped
or rewritten. These items
then were reviewed by a bias-review panel as to whether they
could be perceived as being
offensive on the basis of gender, race, religion, or ethnic-group
membership. Any item that
was perceived as being offensive or could inappropriately
identify a normal behavior as
psychopathology was deleted.
Expert judges, who were nationally recognized within the
content area of each scale,
then were used to sort the remaining items to ensure that each
item was related to its actual
construct for each scale on the PAI. The overall agreement was
94.3% among these judges
for the 776 items that were retained for the alpha version of the

PAI.
Groups of college students then completed the alpha-version of
the PAI in one of three
conditions: (1) standard, in which students were asked to
respond frankly and honestly; (2)
positive-impression management, in which the students were
asked to respond as if they
were trying to impress a potential employer; and (3)
malingering, in which the students
were asked to simulate the responses of a person with a mental
disorder. Items for the beta
283
Table 9.1 Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) scales
Validity Scales
ICN
INF
NIM
PIM
Clinical Scales
SOM
SOM-C
SOM-S

SOM-H
ANX
ANX-C
ANX-A
ANX-P
ARD
ARD-0
ARD-P
ARD-T
DEP
DEP-C
DEP-A
DEP-P
MAN
MAN-A
MAN-G
MAN-I
PAR
PAR-R

PAR-H
PAR-P
scz
SCZ-P
SCZ-S
SCZ-T
BOR
BOR-A
BOR-I
BOR-N
BOR-S
ANT
ANT-A
ANT-E
ANT-S
ALC
DRG
Inconsistency
Infrequency

Negative Impression Management
Positive Impression Management
Somatic Complaints
Conversion
Somatization
Health Concerns
Anxiety
Cognitive
Affective
Physiological
Anxiety-Related Disorders
Obsessive-Compulsive
Phobias
Traumatic Stress
Depression
Cognitive
Affective
Physiological
Mania
Activity Level
Grandiosity
Irritability

Paranoia
Resentment
Hypervigilance
Persecution
Schizophrenia
Psychotic Experience
Social Detachment
Thought Disorder
Borderline Features
Affective Instability
Identity Problems
Negative Relationships
Self-Harm
Antisocial Features
Antisocial Behaviors
Egocentricity
Stimulus-Seeking
Alcohol Problems
Drug Problems
Personality Assessment Inventory 285
Table 9.1 (Continued)
Treatment Consideration Scales
AGG Aggression
AGG-A Aggressive Attitude

AGG-V Verbal Aggression
AGG-P Physical Aggression
SUI Suicidal Ideation
STR Stress
NON Nonsupport
RXR Treatment Rejection
Interpersonal Scales
DOM Dominance
WRM Warmth
version of the PAI were selected on six bases: (I) reasonable
variability across the construct,
essentially an item-difficulty parameter; (2) a positive,
corrected part-whole correlation of
the item with the total score of the other items on the scale; (3)
the corrected part-whole
correlation was higher than the correlation with measures of
social desirability and positive
and negative impression management; (4) a higher correlation
with their own scale than
other scales; (5) less face valid or "transparent" measures of the
construct embodied in the
Table 9.2 Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI)
Authors:
Published:
Edition:
Publisher:
Website:
Age range:

Reading level:
Additional languages:
Number of items:
Response format:
Primary scales:
Additional scales:
Hand scoring:
General texts:
Morey
1991
1st
www.parinc.com
18+
4th grade
paper/pencil, computer, CD, cassette
Arabic, French Canadian, Korean, Norwegian, Serbian, Slovene
and Swedish
344
False/Not at all True, Slightly True, Mainly True, Very True
40--50 minutes
4 Validity, 11 Clinical, 5 Treatment Considerations, 2
Interpersonal

Subscales for 9 clinical scales and 1 Treatment Consideration
scale
Self-scoring answer sheet
Morey (2003), Morey (2007a)
Psychological Assessment Resources (Clinical: Morey;
Corrections: Morey & Edens)
www.parinc.com
scale; and (6) absence of gender differences. Using these
criteria, a total of 597 items were
retained for the beta-version of the PAL
The beta-version of the PAI was administered to three groups of
individuals: (1) com-
munity adults; (2) clinical patients; and (3) college students
with either positive impression
or malingering instructions. Similar item characteristics were
assessed for the beta ver-
sion of the PAI as were assessed with the alpha version. The
final 344 items on the PAI
represented the best balance of all these item characteristics,
including the requirement
that no item could be scored on more than one scale-there are
no overlapping items on
the PAI.
Normative data for the PAI were collected from three groups:
(1) 1,462 community-
dwelling adults from which a subsample of 1,000 were selected
who were census-matched;
(2) 1,265 clinical patients from 69 clinical sites; and (3) 1,051

college students. The norms
for the PAI are based on 1,000 individuals from the census-
matched sample. The skyline
profile on the standard profile form demarcates two standard
deviations above the mean in
the clinical sample allowing the clinician to compare the
individual simultaneously with
both the census-matched and clinical samples (see Figure 9.1).
PAI Scales - Side A 8PAI"
10 11 A C D E y z
110 - ,o: ..,: - 110
70-=------- -~= _36=_-_- 40=------oo: ~=-70
....
I
- 0060
30: 25- 20- ,,_- ,0-
5-
20
: - 25: 20= 20: 1!5: - 5-
- =-20- 15-_- - 15------5--- H'i=------5-----,..,~---=- 5050------
15- - - - - - -
,o: 5-
15-
0- ,: 10- ,0-
10- 10-
:. 4040 0-

100
15-
80.: 10-
15-
66-
OS- ":ss: ,o: .,_
.,_
30-
35: 315- 3J-
,.,_
20-
- 100
:_ 80
3!5-
30.: :_ 30
5-
10-
20 _: :_ 20
Raw
/CN INF NIM PIM

1
SOM
2
ANX
3
ARD
4
DEP
5
MAN
6
PAR
7
SCZ
8
BOR
9
ANT
10
A.LC
11
DRG
A
A.GG

B
SUI
C
STR
D
NON
E
RXR
Y
DOM
Z
WRM
Raw
Tscore Tscore
Figure 9.1 PAI profile form.
Short Form of the PAI
The first 160 items of the PAI can be used to provide a
reasonable estimate of 20 of the
22 clinical scales for all scales but Inconsistency (JCN) and
Stress (STR). These estimates
are possible because the items with the largest item-scale
correlations were located at the

beginning of the test when the final version of the PAI was
developed. Table 11.1 in the
Personality Assessment Inventory Professional Manual (Morey,
1991, p. 142) provides
the descriptive characteristics for these 160 items. The short
form only should be used in
the most unusual circumstances, and the estimated scores must
be considered as generating
only the most tentative interpretive hypotheses. Frazier, Naugle,
and Haggerty (2006) found
that agreement between the short- and full-form of the PAI was
affected adversely when the
validity scales were elevated. They also noted that individuals
with lower levels of ability
were more likely to leave items missing and produce invalid
protocols. These individuals
are the very ones for whom the short form was designed. The
hope was that it would provide
information about the presence of psychopathology that
otherwise might not be available
from a self-report inventory.
PAI-A (Adolescent)
As a result of interest by professionals in using the PAI with
adolescents in clinical settings,
work was begun in 1999 on piloting an adolescent version of the
inventory (Morey, 2007b ).
The intent of this work was to explore the applicability of an
adolescent version that
would closely parallel the adult version of the PAL It would
retain the structure and, as
much as possible, the items of the adult version rather than be
an entirely new version
targeted specifically at an adolescent population. The
development of the PAI-A involved

an adaptation of the items of the adult PAI so that the content
was meaningful when applied
to adolescents. The approach taken was a conservative one-the
question was not whether
the item was optimized to capture the experience of an
adolescent, but rather whether the
item would retain its original meaning when read by the
adolescent. This conservative
approach was merited in that the items on the adult PAI had
been selected on the basis of
numerous criteria, and the rewording or replacement of items
could have significant and
unanticipated effects on the final properties of the adolescent
version and its interpretability
as parallel to the adult version. Thus, these revisions included
rewordings of relatively few
items and involved close equivalents of the original wording.
The next stage in development involved collecting a diverse and
representative sample
of adolescent patients, and determining the psychometric
comparability of items on the
adolescent and adult versions. A relatively small number of
items were identified that
appeared to have different characteristics in adolescent patients
than in adult patients, and
the decision was made to explore the impact of elimination of
these items. On the basis of
these analyses, items were removed in an effort to eliminate the
most problematic items and
yield an item distribution pattern that would closely parallel the
adult instrument. On the
basis of this strategy, the final PAI-A included 264 items. The
PAI-A was then standardized
using a census-matched normative sample of 707 adolescents
aged 12 to 18, as well as

a diverse clinical sample of 1,160 patients in the same age
range. The average internal
consistency for the 22 clinical scales was .79 in the community
sample and .80 in the
clinical sample, while the average test-retest reliability for
these scales was .78 over an
interval of approximately 18 days.
ADMINISTRATION
The first issue in the administration of the PAI is ensuring that
the individual is invested
in the process. Taking a few extra minutes to answer any
questions the individual may
have about why the PAI is being administered and how the
results will be used will pay
excellent dividends. The clinician should work diligently to
make the assessment process
a collaborative activity with the individual to obtain the desired
information. This issue
of therapeutic assessment (Finn, 1996; Fischer, 1994) was
covered in depth in Chapter 2
(pp. 43-44).
Reading level is a crucial factor in determining whether a
person can complete the PAI;
inadequate reading ability (to be discussed) is a major cause of
inconsistent patterns of
item endorsement. Morey (1991) suggests that most individuals

who can read at the fourth-
grade level can take the PAI with little or no difficulty because
the items are written on an
fourth-grade level or less. The PAI has the easiest reading level
of any of the self-report
inventories reviewed in this Handbook. As such, one reason for
selecting the PAI is the
larger number of clients who can complete it successfully
compared with the MMPI-2
(Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) and
the MCMI-III (Millon,
Davis, & Millon, 1997), both of which are written at the eighth-
grade level.
SCORING
Scoring the PAI is relatively straightforward either by hand or
computer. A different answer
sheet is used for hand scoring (Form HS Answer Sheet) and
optical scanning (Form SS
Answer Sheet), so the proper answer sheet must be selected for
the method of scoring. If the
PAI is administered by computer, the computer automatically
scores it. If the individual's
responses to the items have been placed on an answer sheet,
these responses can be entered
into the computer by the clinician for scoring or they can be
hand scored. If the clinician
enters the item responses into the computer for scoring, they
should be double entered so
that any data entry errors can be identified.

through all four responses to
these items with brightly colored ink. Also, cleaning up the
answer sheet is helpful and
facilitates scoring. Responses that were changed need to be
erased completely if possible,
or clearly marked with an "X" so that the clinician is aware that
this response has not been
endorsed by the client.
The PAI (Morey, 1991) and the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae,
1992) are the only self-
report inventories reviewed in this Handbook that do not use
"true/false" items. Both of
these inventories have the same publisher (Psychological
Assessment Resources), which
may account for not using "true/false" items. The PAI uses a
four-point Likert scale ranging
from "false, not at all true," "slightly true," "mainly true," to
"very true." These potential
response options always are presented in this same order on the
answer sheet. When "very
true" is the scored direction for a specific item, the response
options are scored as 0, 1, 2,
or 3 ("very true"). When "false, not at all true" is the scored
direction, the preceding four
response options are scored as 3 ("false, not at all true"), 2, 1,
or 0. Thus, the total raw
score on an eight-item scale, which is the characteristic number
of items on each subscale
of the clinical scales, can range from Oto 24. It is imperative

that the clinician realize that
the total score is the sum of the response options for each scale,
not the total number of
items endorsed on the scale, which is the method for scoring the
MCMI-III, MMPI-2, and
MMPI-A.
The PAI is easier to score than other self-report inventories
because no templates are
required. The answer sheet, on which the person records his or
her responses, is self-scoring.
The items on each scale are designated by ruled and shaded
boxes that are identified by scale
abbreviations. The total raw score for each scale or subscale is
entered in the corresponding
box with the same abbreviation on Side B of the profile form.
The subscales for the various
scales on the PAI are plotted on Side B of the profile form. The
total scores, which are the
sum of the scores on the subscales, for all scales are entered on
Side A of the profile form.
Although this process of hand scoring may sound somewhat
complex, it is straightfor-
ward and can be carried out in 10 to 15 minutes. It is advisable
to have another person
double-check all the scoring and transferring of numbers to
catch any scoring or transcrip-
tion errors before the interpretive process begins.
ASSESSING VALIDITY
Figure 9.2 provides the flowchart for assessing the validity of
this specific administration
of the PAI and the criteria for using this flowchart are provided
in Table 9.3. The clinician is

reminded that the criteria provided in Table 9.3 are continuous,
yet ultimately the decisions
that must be made in implementation of the flowchart in Figure
9.2 are dichotomous.
General guidelines will be provided for translating these
continuous data into dichotomous
decisions on the PAI, but these guidelines need to be considered
within the constraints of
this specific client and the circumstances for the evaluation.
Item Omissions
Morey (1991) recommends that more than 95% of the items
should be endorsed if the PAI
is to be interpreted; that is, no more than 17 (.05 x 344) items
should be omitted. Table 9.3
shows that omitting 17 items is somewhere between the 93rd
and 98th percentile in both
normal and clinical samples. Morey also recommends that more
than 80% of the items
should be endorsed for any individual scale to be interpreted.
The subscales of the clinical
scales all have six to eight items, so the omission of two items
from one of these subscales
(6/8 = 75%) would mean that subscale should not be interpreted,
although the entire scale
could be interpreted if more than 80% of its items were
endorsed.
Consistency of Item Endorsement
Consistency of item endorsement on the PAI is assessed by the
Inconsistency Scale (/CN)
and Infrequency Scale (INF). The Inconsistency Scale (/CN)
scale consists of 10 pairs of

shown on this form also allows the clinician to compare the
individual's scores on each
scale with the clinical sample.
APPLICATIONS
As a self-report inventory, the PAI is easily administered in a
wide variety of settings and
for a variety of purposes. Although the PAI was developed as a
broadband measure of
psychopathology in clinical settings, its use has gradually been
extended to forensic and
criminal settings, neuropsychological settings, and medical
settings. One of the primary
reasons for its rising popularity in these settings is that it is
shorter and easier to read than
the other self-report inventories.
Somewhat different issues must be considered in the
administration of the PAI in per-
sonnel selection and forensic settings compared with the more
usual clinical setting. These
general issues were covered in Chapter 6 with the MMPI-2 (pp.
197-198) and will not be
repeated here, but they should be consulted by anyone who is
using the PAI in personnel
selection or forensic settings for the first time.
One of the considerations in the use of any assessment test or
technique in forensic
settings is whether it will meet the legal standards for

admissibility. These considerations
were raised in Chapter 8 with the MCMI-III (pp. 276-277)
because various authors have
opined that the MCMI-III does or does not meet these legal
standards. Morey, Warner, and
Hopwood (2007) have described how the PAI meets the legal
standards for admissibility.
In a survey of forensic psychologists, Lally (2003) reported that
the PAI was rated as being
acceptable for the evaluation of mental status at the time of the
offense, risk for violence,
risk for sexual violence, competency to stand trial, and
malingering.
The PAI is increasingl y being used in correctional settings
because it is shorter and
easier to read than other self-report inventories. Edens, Cruise,
and Buffington-Vollum
(2001) have provided a general overview of the issues involved
in using the PAI in forensic
and correctional settings. Edens and Ruiz (2006) reported that
elevated scores on the
Positive Impression Management (PIM > T56) scale in
conjunction with elevated scores
on the Antisocial Features (ANT > T59) scale predicted
institutional misconduct among
male inmates. Caperton, Edens, and Johnson (2004) found that
elevated scores on the
Antisocial Features (ANT > T69) scale identified sex offenders
who were more likely to
be management risks while in prison. Finally, Kucharski,
Duncan, Egan, and Falkenback
(2006) found that three levels of psychopathy as measured by
the PCL-R were not related
to scores on Negative Impression Management (NIM) scale, the
Malingering Index (MAL),

or Rogers' discriminant function (RDF), and that the criminal
defendants with higher levels
of psychopathy were not more likely to malinger as measured by
the PAI scales.
Finally, the PAI is being used in neuropsychological settings to
evaluate whether
the effects of brain injury have produced any psychological
sequelae. Demakis et al.
(2007) found that 34.7% of their sample of 95 individuals who
had suffered a traumatic
brain injury did not elevate any clinical scale on the PAI above
a T score of 69. This
number of unelevated profiles in individuals with brain injury is
commonly found (cf.
Warriner, Rourke, Velikonja, & Metham, 2003). The most
common two-point codetypes
were: SCZ/BDL-(Schizophrenia/Borderline Features)-18.9%;
DEP/SCZ-(Depression/
Schizophrenia)-12.6%; and SOM/ANX-(Somatic
Complaints/Anxiety)-10.5%.
Age
Morey (1996a) reported age has minimal impact on the PAI
scale scores. Individuals who

were 18 to 29 years of age elevated the Paranoia (PAR) scale 5
T points, the Borderline
Features (BOR) scale 6 T points, the Antisocial Features (ANT)
scale 7 T points, the
Aggression (AGG) scale 5 T points, and the Stress (STR) scale
4 T points higher than
other age groups. The primary subscale impacted by this
elevation in score was Paranoia-
Persecution (PAR-P), Borderline Features-Identity Problems
(BOR-1), Antisocial Features-
Stimulus Seeking (ANT-S), and Aggression-Verbal Aggression
(AGG-V). There are no
subscales for Stress (STR). Individuals who were 60+ years of
age lower these same five
scales 4 T points. The primary subscale lowered by this
elevation was Paranoia-Resentment
(PAR-R), Borderline Features-Identity Problems (BOR-1),
Antisocial Features-Antisocial
Behavior (ANT-A), and Aggression-Physical Aggression (AGG-
P).
Gender
Gender does not create any general issues in PAI interpretation
because the items were
selected to eliminate gender bias. Men elevated the Antisocial
Features (ANT) scale by 3 T
points more than women (Morey, 1996a). This elevation
primarily impacted the Antisocial
Features-Antisocial Behavior (ANT-A) subscale.
Education
any systematic manner on
the PAI, although such research clearly is needed.

Ethnicity
The effects of ethnicity on PAI performance also have not been
investigated in any system-
atic manner. Morey (1996a) reported that nonwhite individuals
elevated the Paranoid (PAR)
scale 6 T points compared with White individuals. This
elevation primarily impacted the
Paranoid-Hypervigilance (PAR-H) subscale.
Reliability
The PAI Professional Manual (Morey, 1991, Appendix E)
reported the reliability data
for 75 community-dwelling adults who were retested after an
average of 24 days and 80
undergraduate students who were retested at 28 days. The test-
retest correlations ranged
from .85 to .94 in the adult sample and ranged from .66 to .90 in
the student sample across
the 11 clinical scales. The standard error of measurement ranges
from 2.8 to 4.6 T points
for these 11 clinical scales, that is, the individual's "true" score
on the clinical scales will
be within ±3 to 5 T points two-thirds of the time.
Codetype Stability
There are limited empirical data that indicate how consistently
individuals will obtain the
same two highest clinical scales on two successive
administrations of the PAL Codetype

stability was examined in all 155 individuals who were part of
the examination of retest
reliability just described. When only the single highest scale
was examined across the two
administrations, 57.4% had the same high-point scale. When
this analysis was limited only
to those individuals with significant elevations (20/155), 76.9%
had the same high-point
scale. These data should only be considered to be an estimate of
the actual codetype stability
of the PAI. Because only a single high-point scale was
considered, there has to be a lower
rate of stability when the two highest scales are required to be
the same. On the other hand,
clinical samples would produce higher elevations on the PAI
clinical scales than these
normal individuals and the preceding data suggest that
concordance rates would be higher
for more elevated profiles.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The PAI (Morey, 1991) is the newest of the self-report
inventories reviewed in this Hand-
book. The PAI is gradually gaining a wide base of usage
because it is shorter than all other
self-report inventories except the MCMI-III and it has the
lowest reading level of any of
them. There has been a substantial increase in research with the
PAI in each ensuing year
that continues to validate its use in a number of different
settings.

REFERENCES
(4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Bacchiochi, J. R., Ryder, A.G.,
& Bury, A. S. (2002). The predictive
capacity of the MMPI-2 and PAI validity scales and indexes to
detect coached and uncoached
feigning. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 78, 69-86.
Baity, M. R., Siefert, C. J., Chambers, A., & Blais, M.A.
(2007). Deceptiveness with the PAI: A
study of nai"ve faking with psychiatric inpatients. Journal
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A.
M., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI-2:
Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Caperton, J. D., Edens, J. F., & Johnson, J. K. (2004).
Predicting sex offender institutional adjustment
and treatment compliance using the PAI. Psychological
Assessment, I 6, 187-191.
Cashel, M. L., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. (1995). The PAI and
the detection of defensiveness. Assess-
ment, 2, 333-342.
Clark, M. E., Gironda, R. J., & Young, R. W. (2003). Detection
of back random responding: Effec-
tiveness of MMPI-2 and PAI validity indices. Psychological

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa,
Resources.
Demakis, G. J., Hammond, F., Knotts, A., Cooper, D. B.,
Clement, P., Kennedy, J., et al. (2007).
The PAI in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Archives of
Clinical Neuropsychology, 22,
123-130.
Edens, J. F., Cruise, K. R., & Buffington-Vollum, J. K. (2001).
Forensic and correctional applications
of the PAI. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 519-543.
Edens, J. F., Poythress, N. G., & Watkins-Clay, M. M. (2007).
Detection of malingering in psychiatric
unit and general population prison inmates: A comparison of the
PAI, SIMS, and SIRS. Journal
Edens, J. F., & Ruiz, M. A. (2006). On the validity of validity
scales: The importance of defensive
responding in the prediction of institutional misconduct.
Psychological Assessment, 18, 220--224.
nesota Press.

Frazier, T. W., Naugle, R. L, & Haggerty, K. A. (2006).
Psychometric adequacy and comparability
of the short and full forms of the PAL Psychological
Assessment, I 8, 324-333.
Hopwood, C. J., Morey, L. C., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. (2007).
Malingering on the PAI: Identification
of specific feigned disorders. Journal of Personality
Kucharski, L. T., Duncan, S., Egan, S.S., & Falkenbach, D. M.
(2006). Psychopathy and malingering
of psychiatric disorder in criminal defendants. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 24, 633---644.
Kucharski, L. T., Toomey, J. P., Fila, K., & Duncan, S. (2007).
Detection of malingering of psy-
chiatric disorder with the PAI: An investigation of criminal
defendants. Journal of Personality
Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic
evaluations? A survey of experts.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 491-498.
Millon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (1997). MCMI-III manual
(2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National
Computer Systems.
Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory
professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-
logical Assessment Resources.
Morey, L. C. (1996a). An interpretive guide to the PAI. Odessa,

Resources.
Morey, L. C. (1996b). PAI structural summary. Odessa, FL:
Morey, L. C. (1999). PAI interpretive explorer module manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Morey, L. C. (2003). Essentials of PAI assessment. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Morey, L. C. (2007a). An interpretive guide to the PAI. Odessa,
Resources.
Morey, L. C. (2007b). Personality Assessment Inventory---
A.dolescent professional manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Morey, L. C., & Hopwood, C. J. (2004). Efficiency of a strategy
for detecting back random responding
on the PAL Psychological Assessment, 16, 197-200.
Morey, L. C., Warner, M. B., & Hopwood, C. J. (2007).
Personality Assessment Inventory: Issues in
legal and forensic settings. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic
psychology: Emerging topics and
expanding roles (pp. 97-126). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Peebles, J., & Moore, R. J. (1998). Detecting socially desirable
responding with the PAI: The Positive
Impression Management scale and the Defensiveness Index.
Journal ofClinical Psychology, 54,
621---628.

Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Morey, L. C., & Ustad, K. L. (1996).
Detection of feigned mental disor-
ders on the Personality Assessment Inventory: A discriminant
analysis. Journal of Personality
Warriner, E. M., Rourke, B. P., Velikonja, D., & Metham, L.
(2003). Subtypes of emotional and
behavioral sequelae in patients with traumatic brain injury.
Journal ofClinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 25, 904-917.
a-283-289a-310-313
Chapter 6
MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC
PERSONALITYINVENTORY4
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2:
Butcher, Dahlstrom, Gra-
ham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989; Butcher et al., 2001) is a
broadband measure of the
major dimensions of psychopathology found in Axis I disorders
and some Axis II disor-
ders of the DSM-W-TR (American Psychiatric Association,
2000). The MMPI-2 consists
of 9 validity and 10 clinical scales in the basic profile, along
with 15 content scales, 9
restructured clinical scales, and 20 supplementary scales (s ee
Table 6.1).
There also are subscales for most of the clinical and content

scales with easily over
120 scales that can be scored and interpreted on the MMPI-2.
Table 6.2 provides general
information on the MMPI-2.
HISTORY
Hathaway and McKinley ( 1940) sought to develop a
multifaceted or multiphasic person-
ality inventory, now known as the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI),
that would surmount the shortcomings of the previous
personality inventories. These short-
comings included (a) relying on how the researcher thought
individuals should respond to
the content of items rather than validating how they actually
responded to the items; (b)
using only face-valid items whose purpose or intent was easily
understood; and (c) failing
to assess whether individuals were trying to distort their
responses to the items in some
manner. Instead of using independent sets of tests, each with a
specific purpose, Hathaway
and McKinley included in a single inventory a wide sampling of
behavior of significance to
psychologists. They wanted to create a large pool of items from
which various scales could
be constructed, in the hope of evolving a greater variety of valid
personality descriptions
than was currently available.
MMPI (Original Version)
To this end, Hathaway and McKinley (1940) assembled more
than 1,000 items from
psychiatric textbooks, other personality inventories, and clinical

experience. The items
were written as declarative statements in the first-person
singular, and most were phrased in
the affirmative. Using a subset of 504 items, Hathaway and
McKinley constructed a series
of quantitative scales that could be used to assess various
categories of psychopathology.
The items had to be answered differently by the criterion group
(e.g., hypochondriacal
135
Table 6.1 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
(MMPl-2) scales
Validity Scales
?
VRIN
TRIN
F
FB
Fp
L
K
s
Clinical Scales

I (Hs)
2 (D)
3 (Hy)
4 (Pd)
5(Mf)
6 (Pa)
7 (Pt)
8 (Sc)
9 (Ma)
0 (Si)
Restructured Clinical Scales
RCd
RC/som
RC2lpe
RC3cyn
RC4asb
RC6per
RC7dne
RC8abx
RC9hpm
Content Scales

ANX
FRS
OBS
DEP
HEA
BIZ
ANG
CYN
ASP
TPA
LSE
SOD
FAM
WRK
TRT
Cannot Say
Variable Response Consistency
True Response Consistency
Infrequency
Back Infrequency
Infrequency Psychopathology
Lie

Correction
Superlative
Hypochondriasis
Depression
Hysteria
Psychopathic Deviate
Masculinity-Femininity
Paranoia
Psychasthenia
Schizophrenia
Hypomania
Social Introversion
Demoralization
Somatization
Low Positive Emotionality
Cynicism
Antisocial Behavior
Persecutory Ideas
Dysfunctional Negative Emotions
Aberrant Experiences
Hypomanic Activation
Anxiety
Fears
Obsessions
Depression
Health Concerns
Bizarre Mentation

Anger
Cynicism
Antisocial Practices
Type A
Low Self-Esteem
Social Discomfort
Family Problems
Work Interference
Negative Treatment Indicators
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 137
Table 6.1 (Continued)
PSY-5 Scales
AGGR
PSYC
DISC
NEGE
INTR
Supplementary Scales
Broad Personality Characteristics
A
R
Es
Do
Re

Generalized Emotional Distress
Mt
PK
MDS
Behavioral Dyscontrol
Ho
0-H
MAC-R
AAS
APS
Gender Role
GF
GM
Aggression
Psychoticism
Disconstraint
Negative Emotionality
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality
Anxiety
Repression
Ego Strength
Dominance
Social Responsibility
College Maladjustment
PTSD-Keane
Marital Distress

Hostility
Overcontrolled Hostility
MacAndrew Alcoholism-Revised
Addiction Admission
Addiction Potential
Gender Role-Feminine
Gender Role-Masculine
patients) as compared with normal groups. Since their approach
was strictly empirical and
no theoretical rationale was posited as the basis for accepting or
rejecting items on a specific
scale, it is not always possible to discern why a particular item
distinguishes the criterion
group from the normal group. Rather, items were selected solely
because the criterion
group answered them differently than other groups. For each of
the criterion groups and the
normative group, the frequency of "True" and "False" responses
was calculated for each
item. An item was tentatively selected for a scale if the
difference in frequency of response
between the criterion group and the normative group was at
least twice the standard error of
the proportions of true/false responses of the two groups being
compared. Having selected
items according to this procedure, Hathaway and McKinley then
eliminated some of them
for various reasons. First, the frequency of the criterion group's
response was required
to be greater than 10% for nearly all items; those items that
yielded infrequent deviant
response rates from the criterion group were excluded even if

they were highly significant
statistically because they represented so few criterion cases.
Additionally, items whose
responses appeared to reflect biases on variables such as marital
status or socioeconomic
Table 6.2 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality lnventory-2
(MMPI-2)
Authors:
Published:
Edition:
Publisher:
Website:
Age Range:
Reading Level:
Administration Formats:
Additional Languages:
Number of Items:
Response Format:
Administration Time:
Primary Scales:
Additional Scales:
Hand Scoring:
General Texts:
Computer Interpretation:
Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, and Kaemmer
1989
2nd
Pearson Assessments

www.PearsonAssessments.com
18+
6th-8th grade
paper/pencil, computer, CD, cassette
Spanish, Hmong, and French for Canada
567
True/False
60--90 minutes
9 Validity, 10 Clinical, 15 Content
5 PSY-5, 9 Restructured Clinical, 20 Supplementary
Templates
Friedman et al. (2001); Graham (2006); Greene (2000); Nichols
(2001)
Caldwell Report (Caldwell); Pearson Assessments (Butcher);
Psychological Assessment Resources (Greene)
status were excluded. Evaluation of several methods of
weighting individual items showed
no advantage over using unweighted items. Therefore, each item
simply received a weight
of "one" in deriving a total score. In other words, a person's
score on any MMPI scale is
equal to the total number of items that the individual answers in
the same manner as the
criterion group.
The empirical approach to item selection used by Hathaway and
McKinley, in fact, freed
them of any concerns about how any individual interprets
specific items because it assumes
that the individual's self-report is just that and makes no a priori
assumptions about the
relationships between the individual's self-report and the
individual's behavior. Items are
selected for inclusion in a specific scale only because the

criterion group answered the items
differently than the normative group irrespective of whether the
item content is actually an
accurate description of the criterion group. Any relationship
between individuals' responses
on a given scale and their behavior must be demonstrated
empirically.
MMPI-2 (Restandardized Version)
The MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 1989, 2001) represents the
restandardization of the MMPI that
was needed to provide current norms for the inventory, develop
a nationally representative
and larger normative sample, provide appropriate representation
of ethnic minorities, and
update item content where needed. Continuity between the
MMPI and the MMPI-2 was
maintained because new criterion groups and item derivation
procedures were not used
on the standard validity and clinical scales. Thus, the items on
the validity and clinical
scales of the MMPI are essentially unchanged on the MMPI-2
except for the elimination of
13 items based on item content and the rewording of 68 items.
www.PearsonAssessments.com
In the development of the MMPl-2, the Restandardization
Committee (Butcher et al.,
1989) started with the 550 items on the original MMPI; that is,
they first deleted the 16
repeated items. They reworded 141 of these 550 items to

eliminate outdated and sexist
language and to make these items more easily understood.
Rewording these items did
not change the correlations of the items with the total scale
score in most cases (Ben-
Porath & Butcher, 1989). Many of these items were omitted on
the original MMPI because
individuals did not understand them. Greene (1991, p. 57)
provides examples of these items
such as playing drop the handkerchief. The Restandardization
Committee then added 154
provisional items that resulted in the 704 items on Form AX,
which was used to collect the
normative data for the MMPI-2.
When finalizing the items to be included on the MMPI-2, the
Restandardization Com-
mittee deleted 77 items from the original MMPI in addition to
the 13 items deleted from the
standard validity and clinical scales and the 16 repeated items.
Consequently, most special
and research scales that have been developed on the MMPI are
still capable of being scored
unless the scale has an emphasis on religious content or the
items are drawn predominantly
from the last 150 items on the original MMPI.
The Restandardization Committee included 68 of the 141 items
that had been rewritten,
and they incorporated 107 of the provisional items to assess
major content areas that were
not covered in the original MMPI item pool. The rationale for
including and dropping items

from Form AX that resulted in the 567 items on the MMPI-2 has
not been made explicit.
The MMPI-2 was standardized on a sample of 2,600 individuals
who resided in seven
different states (California, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Washington) to reflect national census parameters on age,
marital status, ethnicity, educa-
tion, and occupational status. The normative sample for the
MMPI-2 varies significantly
from the original normative sample for the MMPI in several
areas: years of education, rep-
resentation of ethnic minorities, and occupational status. The
individuals in the normative
sample for the MMPI-2 also are more representative of the
United States as a whole because
national census parameters were used in their collection.
However, they still varied from
the census parameters on years of education and occupational
status. The potential im-
pact of this higher level of education and occupation in the
MMPI-2 normative sample on
codetype and scale interpretation has been a focus of concern
(Caldwell, 1997c; Helmes
& Reddon, 1993). However, Schink.a and LaLone (1997)
compared a census-matched sub-
sample created within the MMPI-2 restandardization sample and
found only one difference
that exceeded 3 T score points between these two samples on
the standard validity and
clinical scales, content scales, and supplementary scales.
The extant literature that has examined the empirical correlates
of MMPI-2 scales and

codetypes has been consistent with the correlates reported for
their MMPI counterparts
(Archer, Griffin, & Aiduk, 1995; Graham, Ben-Porath, &
McNulty, 1999). It appears safe
to assume that the correlates of well-defined MMPI-2 codetypes
(the two highest clinical
scales composing the codetype should be at least five T points
higher than the next highest
clinical scale) and the individual validity and clinical scales
will be very similar to those
for the MMPI. The data are less clear for MMPI-2 codetypes
that are not well-defined,
although it still will be safe to interpret the individual validity
and clinical scales in these
codetypes using MMPI correlates given the minimal change at
the scale level.
New sets of scales have been developed with the MMPI-2 item
pool: content scales
(Butcher, Graham, Williams, & Ben-Porath, 1990); content
component scales (Ben-Porath
& Sherwood, 1993); personality psychopathology five scales
(PSY-5: Harkness, McNulty,
Ben-Porath, & Graham, 2002); and restructured clinical scales
(Tellegen et al., 2003).
Several major reviews of the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Graham, &
Ben-Porath, 1995; Butcher
& Rouse, 1996; Caldwell, 1997c; Greene, Gwin, & Staal, 1997;
Helmes & Reddon, 1993)
provide summaries from a variety of perspectives on this

venerable instrument. These
reviews provide the interested reader with an excellent starting
point for looking at the
current status of the MMPI-2. Butcher et al. (1995) and Greene
et al. (1997) also outline
the general steps that researchers need to follow and issues that
need to be addressed in
conducting research with the MMPI-2. It is to be hoped that
researchers will heed the advice
dispensed in these reviews to enhance the quality of the data
that are being collected.
Unlike the MMPI which was used with all ages, the MMPI-2 is
to be used only with
adults /8 years of age and older. Adolescents are to be tested
with the MMPI-A (Butcher
et al., 1992), which is designed specifically for them (see
Chapter 7).
ADMINISTRATION
The first requirement in the administration of the MMPI-2 is
ensuring that the individual is
invested in the process. It will pay excellent dividends to spend
a few extra minutes answer-
ing any questions the individual may have about why the
MMPI-2 is being administered and
how the results will be used. The clinician should work
diligently to make the assessment
process a collaborative activity with the individual to obtain the
desired information. This
issue of therapeutic assessment (Finn, 1996; Fischer, 1994) was
covered in more depth in
Chapter 2 (pp. 43-44).

MMPI-2; inadequate reading ability is a major cause of
inconsistent patterns of item
endorsement to be discussed later. Butcher et al. ( 1989) suggest
that most clients who
have had at least 8 years of formal education can take the
MMPl-2 with little or no
difficulty because the items are written on an eighth-grade level
or less. A number of
authors (Dahlstrom, Archer, Hopkins, Jackson, & Dahlstrom,
1994; Paolo, Ryan, & Smith,
1992; Schinka & Borum, 1993) have studied the readability of
MMPl-2 and MMPI-A
items. There was general concurrence that the average
readability of the MMPI-2 and
MMPI-A is in the range of fifth to sixth grade. The scales
requiring the highest reading
levels were 9 (Ma: Hypomania), the three content scales of
Antisocial Practices (ASP),
Cynicism (CYN), and Type A (TPA), several of the Harris and
Lingoes (1955) subscales:
Hy2 (Need for Affection), Pa3 (Naivete), Sc5 (Lack of Ego
Mastery, Defective Inhibition),
Ma 1 (Amorality), Ma2 (Psychomotor Acceleration), Ma3
(Imperturbability), and Ma4 (Ego
Inflation). On most of these scales, at least 25% of their items
required more than an eighth-
grade reading level. These estimates of the required grade level
are conservative because
they are based on assessing the readability of individual MMPI-
2 items or groups of items.
They are not based on the difficulty of understanding what is
meant by saying either "true"
or "false" to a specific item. The reader can assess this problem
directly by trying to
understand exactly what is meant by saying "false" to an MMPI-

2 item that is worded in
the negative. What do individuals actually mean when they say
"false" to an item such as
"I do not always have pain in my back"? Schinka and Borum did
suggest that individuals
be asked to read MMPI-2 items 114, 226, and 445 if they have
completed less than a 10th
grade education to determine whether their reading skills are
adequate. Dahlstrom et al.
(1994) also noted that the instructions for the MMPI-2 actually
were more difficult than the
items on the test so clinicians should be sure the individual
fully understands them.
SCORING
Scoring the MMPI-2 is relatively straightforward either by hand
or computer. If the
MMPI-2 is administered by computer, the computer
automatically scores it. If the in-
dividual's responses to the items have been placed on an answer
sheet, these responses can
be entered into the computer by the clinician for scoring or they
can be hand-scored. If the
clinician enters the item responses into the computer for
scoring, they should be double
entered so that any data entry errors can be identified.
The first step in hand-scoring is to examine the answer sheet
omitted items and double-marked items by drawing a line with

brightly colored ink through
both the "true" and "false" responses to these items. Also,
cleaning up the answer sheet
helps facilitate scoring. Responses that were changed need to be
erased completely if
possible, or clearly marked with an "X" so that the clinician is
aware that this response has
not been endorsed by the client.
There is one scale that must always be scored without a
template. The Cannot Say(?)
scale score is the total number of items not marked and double
marked. All the other scales
are scored by placing a plastic template over the answer sheet
with a small box drawn at
the scored (deviant) response--either "true" or "false"-for each
item on the scale. The
total number of such items marked equals the client's raw score
for that scale; this score
is recorded in the proper space on the answer sheet. One scale-
Scale 5 (Mf- Masculinity-
Femininity)-is scored differently for men and women, and
unusually high or low scores
on this scale might indicate that the wrong template was used.
Among women, a raw score
less than 30 is unusual, and such raw scores should at least
arouse a suspicion that the
wrong template was used in scoring the scale. All scoring
templates are made of plastic
and must be kept away from heat.
Plotting the profile is the next step in the scoring process. In
essence, the clinician
transfers all the raw scores from the answer sheet to the
appropriate column of the profile
sheet (see Figure 6.1). Some precautions must be taken and data

calculations performed.
First, separate profile sheets are used for men and women as
with the scoring templates for
Scale 5; an unusually high or low score plotted for Scale 5
should alert the clinician to the
possibility that the wrong profile sheet was selected. Second,
each column on the profile
sheet is used to represent the raw scores for a specific scale.
Each dash represents a raw
score of 1 with the larger dashes marking increments of 5. Thus,
the clinician notes the
individual's raw score on the scale being plotted and makes a
point or dot at the appropriate
dash. Once the clinician has plotted the individual's scores on
the eight validity scales, a
solid line is drawn to connect them. The raw score on the
Cannot Say(?) scale is merely
recorded in the proper space in the lower left-hand comer of the
profile sheet.
A similar procedure is followed to plot the 10 clinical scales
except that five of the clinical
scales (1 [Hs: Hypochondriasis], 4 [Pd: Psychopathic Deviate],
7 [Pt: Psychasthenia],
8 [Sc: Schizophrenia], and 9 [Ma: Hypomania]) are K-corrected;
that is, a fraction of K is
added to the raw score before the individual's score is plotted.
For these five scales that
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality lnventory-2 197
Spike 3 codetypes. A client with a T score of 60 on the F scale
is almost 15 points higher
than the mean for Spike 3 codetypes, and nearly 40 points lower

than the mean for 6-8/8-6
codetypes. A T score of 60 is unusual in both of these
codetypes; in the former it is higher
than expected and in the latter it is much lower than expected.
Similar variations can be
seen in the T scores for Scales 2 (D: Depression) and 8 (Sc:
Schizophrenia).
A codetype analysis can be further refined by considering
additional clinical scales to
create three- and four-point codetypes. A number of two-point
codetypes have frequent
three-point variants that should be considered in the
interpretation of the MMPI-2, such as
variants of 2-414-2 (2-4/4-2-(3), 2-4/4-2-(7), 2-4/4-2-(8)) and 2-
7/7-2 (2-717-2-(1), 2-717-
2-(3), 2-717-2-(8), 2-7/7-2-(0)) codetypes. Again, the
interpretation of a client's score on a
given scale will change as the prototypic score changes in the
three-point codetypes within
a particular group.
The final "group" with which the MMPI-2 can be compared in
the interpretive process
is the individual, or idiographic, interpretation. In this
comparison, the relative elevations
of the scales become important because they indicate which
content domains are more
or less important for this particular individual. An individual
who has T scores of 75
and 60 on the content scales of Depression (DEP) and Anxiety
(ANX), respectively, is
saying that symptoms of depression are more of a problem than
symptoms of anxiety. The
MMPI-2 content (Butcher et al., 1990) and content component

(Ben-Porath & Sherwood,
1993) scales are an excellent means of developing such an
idiographic interpretation of an
individual's MMPI-2 profile, because the various content
domains can be juxtaposed so
that the clinician can compare them directly.
APPLICATIONS
As a self-report inventory, the MMPI-2 is easily administered in
a wide variety of settings
and for a variety of purposes. Although the MMPI was
developed originally in a clinical
setting with a primary focus on establishing a diagnosis for the
person (Hathaway &
McKinley, 1940), its uses quickly broadened to include more
general descriptions of the
behavior and symptoms of most forms of psychopathology (cf.
Dahlstrom et al., 1972).
This use was followed by extensions into the screening of
applicants in personnel selection
settings and a multitude of uses in forensic settings.
administration of the MMPI-2 in
personnel selection and forensic settings compared with the
more usual clinical setting.
First, not only is the administration not going to be therapeutic,
the MMPI-2 results have
the potential to cause a fairly negative impact on the individual.
The individual may not be
selected in a personnel-screening setting or be less likely to be
considered for custody of
children because of the acknowledgment of significant
psychopathology.

Second, the assessment of validity is particularly important
because different forensic
settings can have a significant impact on the data that are
obtained from an individual. Items
particularly sensitive to this impact are likely to be those items
about which an individual
is not sure or ambivalent in responding. In civil forensic
settings such as personal injury,
workers' compensation, and insurance disability claims, this
impact is likely to be in the
opposite direction from that in parenting examinations or
personnel selection. Portraying
oneself as being more impaired in cases for civil damages is
likely to benefit an individual's
claim; portraying oneself as being less impaired and more
psychologically healthy is likely
to benefit an individual's chances of being selected, or at least
not screened out, in a
personnel-screening setting. Consequently, it behooves the
forensic psychologist to know
what types of MMPI-2 scores and profiles are to be expected in
every forensic setting.
There also are different expectations of whether to report
problematic behaviors and
symptoms in criminal cases. Individuals who are being
evaluated for competency to stand
trial or for the introduction of mitigating circumstances during
the sentencing phase after
a conviction for murder versus probation or parole should have
different expectations

of the problematic behaviors and symptoms of psychopathology
that are, or are not, to be
reported. Individuals in the former forensic contexts would be
expected to report any and all
problematic behaviors or symptoms that might be in any way
relevant to their circumstances,
while individuals in the latter would not be expected to report
any problematic behaviors
or symptoms.
Third, in a forensic setting it must be kept in mind that the
MMPI-2 is being used to
address a specific psycholegal issue rather than as a general
screen for psychopathology.
Thus, the interpretations provided of the MMPI-2 must be
relevant to this psycholegal
issue. For example, the mere presence of psychopathology as
indicated by elevation of
several clinical scales on the MMPI-2 may not be directly
relevant to the psycholegal issue
of quality of parenting skills in a child-custody examination or
the ability to understand
legal proceedings in a competency hearing.
Finally, whether it is the prosecution (plaintiff) or the defense
(defendant) that has
retained the forensic psychologist also may impact the
problematic behaviors and symptoms
reported by an individual, but there are minimal empirical data
on this point. Hasemann
( 1997) provided data on workers' compensation claimants who
were evaluated by forensic
psychologists for both the defense and the plaintiff. The
claimant reported more symptoms
and distress to the forensic psychologist retained by the defense

attorney. Consequently,
some of the differences in examinations performed by forensi c
psychologists on the same
individual may reflect that he actually describes problematic
behaviors and symptoms
differently depending on whether he believes that the forensic
psychologist is likely to be
sensitive or insensitive to his self-report. The underlying
heuristic of an individual is likely
to be that the opposing forensic psychologist will require more
proof to be able or willing
to perceive and report an individual as being impaired. These
results suggest that being
examined by the plaintiff's expert and then by the defense's
expert over the same psycholegal
issue should be considered as different forensic contexts rather
than as the same one.
Age
Specific norms are not provided by age on the MMPI-2, even
though it is well known that
there are substantial effects of age below the age of 20. These
age effects are reflected in
the development of separate sets of adolescent norms for the
original MMPI (Marks &
Briggs, 1972), and the restandardization of a different form of
the MMPI for adolescents

(MMPI-A: Butcher et al., 1992). Colligan and his colleagues
(Colligan, Osborne, Swenson,
& Offord, 1983, 1989) found substantial effects of age on
MMPI performance in their
contemporary normative sample with differences of 10 or more
T points between 18- and
19-year-olds and 70-year-olds on Scales L (Lie) and 9 (Ma:
Hypomania). Several MMPl-2
scales demonstrate differences of nearly 5 T points between 20-
year-olds and 60-year-olds
(Butcher et al., 1989, 2001; Caldwell, 1997b, 1997c; Greene &
Schinka, 1995) with scores
on Scales L (Lie: women only), I (Hs: Hypochondriasis), and 3
(Hy: Hysteria) increasing
and Scales 4 (Pd: Psychopathic Deviate) and 9 (Ma:
Hypomania) decreasing with age.
Given that these age comparisons involve different cohorts, it is
not possible to know
whether these effects actually reflect the influence of age or
simply differences between the
cohorts. Butcher et al. (1991) found few effects of age in older
(>60) men and they saw no
reason for age-related norms in these men.
Gender
Gender does not create any general issues in MMPI-2
interpretation because separate norms
(profile forms) are used for men and women. Any gender
differences in how individuals
responded to the items on each scale are removed when the raw
scores are converted to T
scores. Consequently, men and women with a T score of 70 on
Scale 2 (D: Depression) are
one standard deviation above the mean, although women have

endorsed more items (30)
than men (28). When the MMPI-2 is computer scored by
Pearson Assessment, unigender
norms also are provided for each scale. Even a cursory perusal
of these unigender norms
will show that men and women have very similar scores on all
MMPI-2 scales except
for those three scales specifically related to gender (Scale 5
[Mf: Masculinity-Femininity];
Gender-Role Feminine [GF]; Gender-Role Masculine [GM]).
Education
any systematic manner
either on the MMPI or the MMPI-2, although such research is
needed. When the men
and women in the MMPI-2 normative group with less than a
high school education were
contrasted with men and women with postgraduate education
(Dahlstrom & Tellegen, 1993,
pp. 58-59), the differences on the following scales exceeded 5 T
points: L (Lie: women
only), F (Infrequency), K (Correction), 5 (MJ- Masculinity-
Femininity), and O (Si: Social
Introversion). Men and women with less than a high school
education had a higher score in
all these comparisons except for Scales K (Correction) and 5
(Mf· Masculinity-Femininity).
When psychiatric patients with 8 years or less of education were
contrasted with patients
with 16 or more years of education (Caldwell, 1997b), the
differences ranged from 4 to
8 T points on all the scales except 3 (Hy: Hysteria). The
individuals with less education
had higher scores in all these comparisons except for Scales K

(Correction) and 5 (Mf·
Masculinity-Femininity).
Occupation
There do not appear to be any systematic effects for occupation
or income within the
MMPI-2 normative group (Dahlstrom & Tellegen, 1993; Long,
Graham, & Timbrook,
1994). There have been no studies of the effects of these two
factors in psychiatric patients.
Ethnicity
The effects of ethnicity on MMPI performance have been
reviewed by Dahlstrom, Lachar,
and Dahlstrom ( 1986) and Greene ( 1987), and they concluded
that there is not any consistent
pattern of scale differences between any two ethnic groups. A
similar conclusion has been
offered in several other reviews of the effect of ethnicity on
MMPI-2 performance (Greene,
1991, 2000; Hall, Bansal, & Lopez, 1999).
Multivariate regressions of age, education, gender, ethnicity,
and occupation on the
standard validity and clinical scales in the MMPI-2 normative
group (Dahlstrom & Tellegen,
1993) and psychiatric patients (Caldwell, 1997 [age, education,

and gender only]; Schinka,
LaLone, & Greene, 1998) have shown that the percentage of
variance accounted for by
these factors does not exceed 10%. Such small percentages of
variance are unlikely to
impact the interpretation of most MMPl-2 profiles. The one
exception is Scale 5 (Mf:
Masculinity-Femininity) in which slightly over 50% of the
variance is accounted for by
gender.
In summary, demographic variables appear to have minimal
impact on the MMPI-2
profile in most individuals. It may be important to monitor the
validity of the MMPI-2
profile more closely in persons with limited education and
lower occupations. A major
reason that demographic effects are seen in these persons may
simply reflect that the
reading level of the MMPI-2 is approximately the eighth grade
(Butcher et al., 1989, 2001;
Greene, 2000).
Reliability
The MMPI-2 Manual (Butcher et al., 1989, 2001, Appendix E)
reports the reliability data
for 82 men and 111 women who were retested after an average
of 8.58 days. The test-
retest correlations ranged from .54 to .93 across the 10 clinical
scales and averaged .74.
The standard error of measurement is about 5 T points for the
clinical scales, that is, the
individual's true score on the clinical scales will be within ±5 T

points two-thirds of the
time.
The test-retest correlations for the 15 content scales range from
.77 to .91 and averaged
.85. The standard error of measurement is about 4 T points for
the content scales, that is,
the individual's true score on the content scales will be withi n
±4 points two-thirds of the
time.
Codetype Stability
There is little empirical data indicating how consistently clients
will obtain the same
codetype on two successive administrations of the MMPI or the
MMPI-2. The research on
the stability of the MMPI historically focused either on the
reliability of individual scales as
discussed, which leaves unanswered whether clients' codetypes
have remained unchanged.
There would be at least some cause for concern if a client
obtained a 4-9/9-4 codetype on
one occasion and on a second administration of the MMPI-2 a
few months later in another
setting obtained a2-7/7-2 codetype.
Graham, Smith, and Schwartz (1986) have provided the only
empirical data on the
stability of MMPI codetypes for a large sample (N = 405) of
psychiatric inpatients. They

reported 42.7%, 44.0%, and 27.7% agreement across an average
interval of approximately
3 months for high-point, low-point, and two-point codetypes,
respectively. If the patients
were classified into the categories of neurotic, psychotic, and
characterological, 58.1 %
remained in the same category when retested.
Greene, Davis, and Morse (1993, August) reported the stability
of the MMPI in 454
alcoholic inpatients who had been retested after an interval of
approximately 6 months.
Approximately 40% of the men and 32% of the women had the
same single high-point
scale on the two successive administrations of the MMPI.
However, they had the same
two-point codetype only 12% and 13% of the time, respectively.
Almost 30% of these men
and women had two totally different high-point scales when
they took the MMPI on their
second admission.
These data on codetype stability, or more accurately the lack
thereof, suggest sev-
eral important conclusions. First, clinicians should be cautious
about making long-term
predictions from a single administration of the MMPI-2. Rather
an MMPI-2 profile
should be interpreted as reflecting the individual's current
status. Second, it is not clear
whether the shifts that do occur in codetypes across time reflect
meaningful changes in the
clients' behaviors, psychometric instability of the MMPI-2, or
some combination of both

factors.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 1989, 2001) is the oldest and the
most widely used of the
self-report inventories. The numerous validity scales have
served it well in assessing the
many forms of response distortion that are encountered in the
various settings in which the
MMPI-2 is administered. The MMPl-2 is the prototype of an
empirically derived test in
which the correlates of individual scales and codetypes are
determined through research.
There is an extensive research base on most of the major issues
in the assessment of
psychopathology reflecting its long history of use.
REFERENCES
statistical manual ofmental disorders (4th
ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Arbisi, P. A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). An MMPI-2
infrequent response scale for use with
psychopathological populations: The Infrequency
Psychopathology scale: F(p). Psychological
Archer, R. P., Griffin, R., & Aiduk, R. (1995). MMPI-2 clinical
correlates for ten common codes.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 391-407.
Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1997).

Normative data for the MMPI-2 in child
custody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9, 205-211.
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1989). Psychometric
stability of rewritten MMPI items. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 53, 645-653.
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Sherwood, N. E. (1993). The MMPI-2
content component scales: Development,
psychometric characteristics, and clinical applicati on.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Butcher, J. N., Aldwin, C. M., Levenson, M. R., Ben-Porath, Y.
S., Spiro, A., & Bosse, R. (1991).
Personality and aging: A study of the MMPI-2 among older
men. Psychology and Aging, 6,
361-370.
M., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPl-2:
of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995).
Methodological problems and issues in
MMPI, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A research. Psychological
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A.
M., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B.
(2001). MMPl-2: Manual for administration and scoring (Rev.

ed.). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Williams, C. L., & Ben-Porath, Y.
S. (1990). Development and use of
the MMPl-2 content scales. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., & Han, K. (1995). Development of an MMPI-2
scale to assess the presentation of self
in a superlative manner: The S scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D.
Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in
personality assessment ( Vol. 10, pp. 25-50). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 87-111.
Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P.,
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S.,
et al. (1992). MMPI-A (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-Adolescent): Manual for
administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Caldwell, A. B. (1997a). [MMPI-2 data research file for clinical
patients]. Unpublished raw data.
Caldwell, A. B. (1997b ). [MMPI-2 data research file for
personnel applicants]. Unpublished raw data.
Caldwell, A. B. (1997c). Whither goest our redoubtable mentor
the MMPI/MMPI-2? Journal of

Caldwell, A. B. (1998). [MMPI-2 data research file for pain
patients]. Unpublished raw data.
Caldwell, A. B. (2006). Maximal measurement or meaningful
measurement: The interpretive chal-
lenges of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales.
Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 87,
193-201.
Colligan, R. C., Osborne, D., Swenson, W. M., & Offord, K. P.
(1983). The MMPI: A contemporary
normative study. New York: Praeger.
Colligan, R. C., Osborne, D., Swenson, W. M., & Offord, K. P.
(1989). The MMPI: A contemporary
normative study ( 2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Cord, E. L. J., Sajwaj, T. E., Tolliver, D. K., & Ford, T. W.
(1997, June). Normative update on MMPl-2
data for a large federal power utility. Paper presented at the
32nd annual Symposium on Recent
Developments in the use of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A,
Minneapolis, MN.
Dahlstrom, W. G., Archer, R. P., Hopkins, D. G ., Jackson, E.,
& Dahlstrom, L. E. (1994 ). Assessing the
readability of the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory Instruments:
The MMPI, MMPl-2, MMPI-A.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dahlstrom, W. G., Lachar, D., & Dahlstrom, L. E. (1986).
MMPI patterns of American minorities.
Dahlstrom, W. G., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Socioeconomic status

and the MMPl-2: The rela-
tion of MMPl-2 patterns to levels of education and occupation.
Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Dahlstrom, W. G., Welsh, G. S., & Dahlstrom, L. E. (1972). An
MMPI handbook: Vol. I. Clinical
interpretation (Rev. ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Finn, S. (1996). Using the MMPl-2 as a therapeutic
intervention. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Fischer, C. T. (1994). Individualizing psychological asses sment.
Fowler, R. A., Butcher, J. N., & Williams, C. L. (2000).
Essentials of MMPl-2 and MMPI-A inter-
pretation (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Friedman, A. F., Lewak, R., Nichols, D.S., & Webb, J. T.
(2001). Psychological assessment with the
MMPI-2 (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gough, H. G. (1950). The F minus K dissimulation index for the
MMPI. Journal of Consulting
Gough, H. G. (1954). Some common misconceptions about
neuroticism. Journal of Consulting

Graham, J. R. (2006). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and
psychopathology (4th ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & McNulty, J. L. (1999).
MMPI-2 correlates for outpatient
community mental health settings. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Graham, J. R., Smith, R. L., & Schwartz, G. F. (1986). Stability
ofMMPI configurations for psychiatric
inpatients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54,
375-380.
Greene, R. L. (1987). Ethnicity and MMPI performance: A
review.Journal ofConsulting and Clinical
Greene, R. L. (1991). The MMPI-2/MMPI: An interpretive
manual. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Greene, R. L. (2000). The MMPI-2: An interpretive manual.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Greene, R. L., & Brown, R. C. (2006). MMPI-2 adult
interpretive system (3rd ed.). Lutz, FL:
Greene, R. L., Davis, L. J., Jr., & Morse, R. M. (1993, August).
Stability of MMPI codetypes in
alcoholic inpatients. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Psychological
Association, San Francisco.

Greene, R. L., Gwin, R., & Staal, M. (1997). Current status of
MMPI-2 research: A methodological
overview. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 68, 20-36.
Greene, R. L., & Schinka, J. A. (1995). [MMPI-2 data research
file for psychiatric inpatients and
outpatients]. Unpublished raw data.
Hall, G. C. N., Bansal, A., & Lopez, I. R. (1999). Ethnicity and
psychopathology: A meta-analytic
review of 31 years of comparative MMPI/MMPI-2 research.
Psychological Assessment, 11,
186-197.
Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (1994). The Personality
Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Issue
from the pages of a diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary.
In S. Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.),
Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 291-315).
New York: Springer.
Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Graham,
J. R. (2002). MMPI-2 Personality
Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) scales: Gaining an overview for
case conceptualization and
treatment planning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Harris, R. E., & Lingoes, J. C. (1955). Subscales for the MMPI:
An aid to profile interpretation.
Unpublished manuscript, University of California.
Hasemann, D. M. (1997). Practices and findings of mental
health professionals conducting workers'
compensation evaluations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Kentucky.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J.C. (1940). A multiphasic
personality schedule (Minnesota): Pt. I.
Construction of the schedule. Journal ofPsychology, 10, 249-
254.
Helmes, E., & Reddon, J. R. (1993). A perspective on
developments in assessing psychopathology:
A critical review of the MMPI and MMPI-2. Psychological
Bulletin, 113, 453-471.
Keller, L. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1991). Assessment of chronic
pain patients with the MMP/-2.
Koss, M. P., & Butcher, J. N. (1973). A comparison of
psychiatric patients' self-report with other
sources of clinical information. Journal ofResearch in
Personality, 7, 225-236.
Lachar, D., & Wrobel, T. A. (1974). Validating clinicians'
hunches: Construction of a new MMPI
critical item set. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
47, 277-284.
Lees-Haley, P. R. (1997). MMPI-2 base rates for 492 personal
injury plaintiffs: hnplications and
challenges for forensic assessment. Journal of Clinical
Long, K. A., Graham, J. R., & Timbrook, R. E. (1994).
Socioeconomic status and MMPI-2 interpre-

tation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 27, 158-177.
MacAndrew, C. ( 1965). The differentiation of male alcoholic
outpatients from nonalcoholic psychi-
atric outpatients by means of the MMPI. Quarterly Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 26, 238-246.
Marks, P.A., & Briggs, P. F. (1972). Adolescent norm tables for
the MMPI. In W. G. Dahlstrom,
G. S. Welsh, & L. E. Dahlstrom (Eds.), An MMPI handbook:
Vol. I. Clinical interpretation (Rev.
ed., pp. 388-399). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Meehl, P. E. (1957). When should we use our heads instead of
the formula? Journal of Counseling
Megargee, E. I., Mercer, S. J., & Carbonell, J. L. (1999).
MMPI-2 with male and female state and
federal prison inmates. Psychological Assessment, 11, 177-185.
Nichols, D.S. (2001). Essentials of MMPI-2 assessment. New
York: Wiley.
Paolo, A. M., Ryan, J. J., & Smith, A. J. (1992). Reading
difficulty of MMPI-2 subscales. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 47, 529-532.
Paulhus, D. L. ( 1984). Two-component models of socially
desirable responding.Journal ofPersonality
and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression
management in test responses. In A. Angleitner
& J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via

questionnaires: Current issues in theory and
measurement (pp. 143-165). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Schinka, J. A., & Borum, R. (1993). Readability of adult
psychopathology inventories. Psychological
Schinka, J. A., & LaLone, L. ( 1997). MMPI-2 norms:
Comparisons with a census-matched subsample.
Schinka, J. A., LaLone, L., & Greene, R. L. (1998). Effects of
psychopathology and demographic
characteristics on MMPI-2 scale scores. Journal of Personality
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A.,
Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B.
(2003). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales:
Development, validation, and interpretation.
Weed, N. C., Butcher, J. N., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995).
MMPI-2 measures of substance abuse.
In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in
personality assessment ( Vol 10, pp.
121-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weed, N. C., Butcher, J. N., McKenna, T., & Ben-Porath, Y. S.
(1992). New measures for assessing
alcohol and drug abuse with the MMPI-2: The APS and AAS.
58, 389-404.
Welsh, G. S. (1956). Factor dimensions A and R. In G. S. Welsh
& W. G. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic

readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine (pp. 264-
281). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
a-135-141a-197-204
Chapter 8
MILLON CLINICAL MULTIAXIAL
INVENTORY-III
The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III:
Millon, Davis, & Millon, 1994,
1997) is a broadband measure of the major dimensions of
psychopathology found in Axis II
disorders and some Axis I disorders of the DSM-IV-TR
(American Psychiatric Association,
2000). The MCMI-III consists of 4 validity (modifier) scales, 11
personality style scales, 3
severe personality style scales, 7 clinical syndrome scales, and
3 severe clinical syndrome
scales (see Table 8.1). Table 8.2 provides the general
information on the MCMI-111. In
contrast to the MMPl-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen,
& Kaemmer, 1989) that
has 120+ additional scales, the MCMI-III does not have any
subscales for these basic
sets of scales or separate content scales so there are only 28
total scales on the MCMI-111.
Consequently, learning to interpret the MCMI-III is more
straightforward than the MMPI-2.
Recently Grossman and del Rio (2005) described the
development of 35 facet scales for
the 14 personality style scales that represent the first such

attempt to create subscales for
any of the versions of the MCMI. These facet scales are very
new so there is little research
on them or clinical information on their use. They are described
briefly later in this chapter.
HISTORY
Millon (1983; Millon & Davis, 1996) conceptualized an
evolutionary framework for per-
sonality in which the interface of three polarities (pleasure-
pain; active-passive; self-other)
determines an individual's specific personality style as an
adaptation to the environment.
The pleasure-pain polarity involves either seeking pleasure as a
way of enhancing life
or avoiding pain as a way of constricting life. The active-
passive polarity involves either
working to change unfavorable aspects of the environment or
accepting unfavorable aspects
that cannot be changed.
Table 8.3 presents the functional processes and structural
domains for each of the 14
personality disorder styles in the MCMI-111. Millon et al.
(1997) believe that each cell of this
matrix contains the diagnostic attribute or criterion that best
captures the personality style
within that specific functional process or structural domain.
Reading down each column
provides an overview of how each personality style differs on
each functional process or
structural domain. Reading across each row provides an
overview of how each personality
style can be described.

Millon's conceptual system for personality disorders does not
map directly onto the
DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) Axis II
personality disorders. The
latter is an atheoretical categorical system that describes the
behaviors and symptoms needed
251
Table 8.1 Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III
(MCMI-III)
Modifying Indices (Validity Scales)
V Validity Index
X
y
z
Personality Styles
1
2A
2B
3
4
5
6A
6B
7

BA
BB
Severe Personality Styles
s
C
p
Clinical Syndromes
A
H
N
D
B
T
R
Severe Clinical Syndromes
ss
cc
pp
Disclosure Index
Desirability Index
Debasement Index
Schizoid
Avoidant
Depressive
Dependent
Histrionic

Narcissistic
Antisocial
Sadistic (Aggressive)
Compulsive
N egativistic (Passive-Aggressive)
Masochistic
Schizotypal
Borderline
Paranoid
Anxiety Disorder
Somatoform Disorder
Bipolar Disorder: Manic
Dysthymic Disorder
Alcohol Dependence
Drug Dependence
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Thought Disorder
Major Depression
Delusional Disorder
to make a specific personality disorder diagnosis. Millon also
includes personality disorders
such as Sadistic (Aggressive) and Depressive on the MCMl-111
that are not included in the
DSM-IV-TR.
MCMI (First Edition)
The original MCMI (Millon, 1977) had five major
distinguishing features when compared
with the MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1951 ), which was the

primary self-report inventory
in use at the time. First, the MCMI was developed following
Millon's comprehensive
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III 253
Table 8.2 Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory-III (MCMI-111)
Authors:
Published:
Edition:
Publisher:
Website:
Age range:
Reading level:
Languages:
Number of items:
Response format:
Primary scales:
Additional scales:
Hand scoring:
General texts:
Millon, Davis, Millon
1994
3rd
Pearson Assessments
www.PearsonAssessments.com/tests/MCML3
18+

8th grade
Paper/pencil, computer, CD, cassette
Spanish
175
True/False
25-30 minutes
4 Validity, 11 Personality Styles, 3 Severe Personality Styles,
7 Clinical Syndromes, 3 Severe Clinical Syndromes
35 (42) Facet
Templates
Choca (2004), Craig (2005), Jankowski (2002), Millon et al.
(1997),
Retzlaff (1995), Strack (2002)
Pearson Assessments (Millon); Psychological Assessment
Resources
(Craig)
clinical theory described earlier, in contrast to the atheoretical
or empirical development
of the original MMPI (see Chapter 6). Second, the MCMI
contained specific scales to
assess personality disorders, the more enduring personality
characteristics of patients,
which would be incorporated into Axis II of the forthcoming
diagnostic system at the time,
that is, DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980).
Third, the comparison group
consisted of a representative sample of psychiatric patients
instead of normal individuals,
which would facilitate differential diagnosis among patients.
Fourth, scores on the scales
were transformed into actuarial base rates. These base rates
reflected the actual frequency

with which various forms of psychopathology occurred rather
than traditional standard
scores, which measure how far the person deviates from the
mean of normal individuals.
Finally, the MCMI was designed to use as few items as possible
to achieve these goals. At
175 items, the MCMI was and remains the shortest self-report
inventory that is a broadband
measure of the major dimensions of psychopathology.
The original MCMI had four items that evaluated whether the
person had read the items.
These four items will become the Validity (V) scale on the
ensuing editions of the MCMI
that assess the consistency of item endorsement.
The original MCMI did not have explicit validity scales to
assess the accuracy of item
endorsement. Instead a weight factor was developed based on
the variation of the person's
score from the midpoint of the total raw score for the eight
basic personality scales. When
this total raw score was below 110, the person was thought to be
too cautious in reporting
problematic behaviors and symptoms of psychopathology so
their scores would need to
be adjusted upward. Conversely, when the total raw score was
above 130, the person was
thought to be too open or self-revealing so their scores would
need to be adjusted downward.
www.PearsonAssessments.com/tests/MCML3

Table 8.3 Expression of personality disorders across the
functional and structural domains
of personality
Functional Processes
Expressive Interpersonal Regulatory
Disorder Arts Conduct Cognitive Style Mechanisms
1 Schizoid Impassive Unengaged Impoverished
Intellectualization
2A Avoidant Fretful Aversive Distracted Fantasy
2B Depressive Disconsolate Defenseless Pessimistic Asceticism
3 Dependent Incompetent Submissive Nai"ve Introjection
4 Histrionic Dramatic Attention- Flighty Dissociation
Seeking
5 Narcissistic Haughty Exploitive Expansive Rationalization
6A Antisocial Impulsive Irresponsible Deviant Acting Out
6B Sadistic Precipitate Abrasive Dogmatic Isolation
7 Compulsive Disciplined Respectful Constricted Reaction
Formation
SA Negativistic Resentful Contrary Skeptical Displacement
SB Masochistic Abstinent Deferential Diffident Exaggeration
s Schizotypal Eccentric Secretive Autistic Undoing
C Borderline Spasmodic Paradoxical Capricious Regression
p Paranoid Defensive Provocative Suspicious Projection
Structural Attributes
Object Morphologic Mood/
Disorder Self-Image Representation Organization Temperament

1 Schizoid Complacent Meager Undifferentiated Apathetic
2A Avoidant Alienated Vexations Fragile Anguished
2B Depressive Worthless Forsaken Depleted Melancholic
3 Dependent Inept Immature Inchoate Pacific
4 Histrionic Gregarious Shallow Disjointed Fickle
5 Narcissistic Admirable Contrived Spurious Insouciant
6A Antisocial Autonomous Debased Unruly Callous
6B Sadistic Combative Pernicious Eruptive Hostile
7 Compulsive Conscientious Concealed Compartmentalized
Solemn
SA Negativistic Discontented Vacillating Divergent Irritable
SB Masochistic Undeserving Discredited Inverted Dysphoric
s Schizotypal Estranged Chaotic Fragmented Distraught or
Insensitive
C Borderline Uncertain Incompatible Split Labile
p Paranoid Inviolable Unalterable Inelastic Irascible
Note: Self-Other are reversed in Compulsive and Negativistic.
Source: MCM/-1// Manual, second edition (p. 27), by T. Millon,
R. Davis, and C. Millon, 1997, Minneapolis,
MN: National Computer Systems. Reprinted with permission
from table 2.2.
This weight factor will become an explicit validity (modifier)
scale (Disclosure [X]) on the
ensuing forms of the MCMI.
MCMI-11 (Second Edition)

The second edition of the MCMI (MCMI-11: Millon, 1987)
appeared in 1987 to enhance
several features of the original MCMI. Two new personality
disorder scales (Aggres-
sive/Sadistic and Self-Defeating [Masochistic]) and three
validity (modifier) scales (Dis-
closure [X], Desirability [Y], and Debasement [Z]) scales were
added to the profile form.
Forty-five new items (45/175 = 25.7%) were added to replace
45 extant items that did
not add sufficient discriminating power to their scales.
Modifications also were made in
the MCMI-11 items to bring the scales into closer coordination
with DSM-III-R (American
Psychiatric Association, 1987). An item-weighting procedure
was added wherein items
with greater prototypicality for a given scale were given higher
weights of 2 or 3. If an
item was endorsed in the nonscored direction, it was assigned a
weight of 0. If an item was
endorsed in the scored direction, it was assigned a weight of 1,
2, or 3 depending on how
prototypical the item was for that scale with the most
prototypical items assigned a weight
of 3.
The replacement of one-quarter of the items from the original
MCMI limits the general-
izability of its results to the MCMI-11. Even though the scales
still have the same name, the
actual items composing a scale may have changed substantially.
The introduction of the in-
creased weighting of prototypical items on each MCMI-11 scale
also alters the relationship
among the items within the scale and with other scales.

MCMI-III (Third Edition)
The third edition of the MCMI (Millon et al., 1994, 1997)
appeared in 1994 with four major
changes. First, 95 (95/175 = 54.3%) new items were introduced
to parallel the substantive
nature of the then forthcoming DSM-IV criteria (American
Psychiatric Association, 1994).
Second, two new scales were added: one personality style
(Depressive) and one clinical
syndrome scale (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder). Third, a small
set of items was added to
strengthen the Noteworthy responses in the areas of child abuse,
anorexia, and bulimia.
Finally, the weighting of items was reduced to only two levels
with the more prototypical
items for a specific scale adding two points to the raw score.
The generalizability of the research results from the MCMI-11
to the MCMI-III need
to be made cautiously because over one-half of the items were
changed. The emphasis in
these new items also tended to be on DSM-IV criteria. It
appears that the emphasis in the
MCMI-111 is toward the DSM-IV criteria for personality
disorders; whereas the emphasis
in the MCMI-11 was toward Millon's theory.
ADMINISTRATION
The first issue in the administration of the MCMI-III is ensuring
that the individual is
invested in the process. Taking a few extra minutes to answer
any questions the individual
may have about why the MCMI-111 is being administered and
how the results will be used

will pay excellent dividends. This issue may be even more
important with the MCMI-111
than with other self-report inventories because of the relatively
limited number of items
on each scale and the extensive item overlap that quickly
compounds the effect of the
individual distorting responses to even a few items. The
clinician should work diligently
to make the assessment process a collaborative activity with the
individual to obtain the
desired information. This issue of therapeutic assessment (Finn,
1996; Fischer, 1994) was
covered in more depth in Chapter 2 (pp. 43-44).
MCMI-III; inadequate reading ability is a major cause of
inconsistent patterns of item
endorsement. Millon et al. (1997) suggest that most clients who
have had at least 8 years
of formal education can take the MCMI-111 with little or no
difficulty because the items
are written on an eighth-grade level or less. If there is some
concern about the person's
reading level, he or she can be asked to read a few items out
loud to obtain a quick estimate
of whether reading is a problem. In those individuals for whom
reading is difficult, the
MCMI-III can be presented by CD or audiocassette tape.

SCORING
Scoring the MCMI-111 by hand is a complex process that
commonly results in scoring errors
(Millon et al., 1997, p. 112). If computer scoring is not
available, each MCMI-III should
be hand scored and profiled independently by two different
individuals and their scores
verified to catch such errors. If the MCMI-III is administered by
computer, the computer
automatically scores it. If the individual's responses to the items
have been placed on an
answer sheet, these responses can be entered into the computer
by the clinician for scoring
or they can be hand scored. If the clinician enters the item
responses into the computer for
scoring, they should be double entered to identify any data entry
errors.
through both the "true" and
"false" responses to these latter items in brightly colored ink.
Also, cleaning up the answer
sheet is helpful and facilitates scoring. Responses that were
changed need to be erased
completely if possible, or clearly marked with an "X" so that
the clinician is aware that this
response has not been endorsed by the client.
The next step is to determine whether any of the three Validity
(V) scale items (65, 110,
157) have been endorsed as being "True." If two or more of
these items have been endorsed

as being "True," scoring is unwarranted and should stop; it is
probably unwarranted even
if only one of them has been endorsed as "True."
The number of omitted items, which is the total number of items
not marked and double
marked, is scored without a template. There is no standard place
on the profile form on
which the number of omitted items is reported so the clinician
should make it explicit if, and
how many, items have been omitted when it does occur. All the
other scales except for Scale
X (Disclosure) are scored by placing a plastic template over the
answer sheet with a small
box drawn at the scored (deviant) response--either "true" or
"false"-for each item on the
scale. The responses on the MCMI-111 are weighted either "1"
or "2," with the responses
weighted "2" being prototypic for that scale. The sum of these
weighted responses equals
the client's raw score for that scale; this raw score is recorded
in the proper space on the
Critical Items (Noteworthy Responses)
Critical items on the MCMI-III are identified as Noteworthy
Responses (Millon et al.,
1997, Appendix E). These Noteworthy Responses are divided
into six categories: (1)
Health Preoccupations; (2) Interpersonal Alienation; (3)
Emotional Dyscontrol; (4) Self-
Destructive Potential; (5) Childhood Abuse; and (6) Eating

Disorders. The deviant response
to all these items is "True." These items are intended to alert the
clinician to specific items
that warrant close review. All the items except one within
Health Preoccupations are found
on Scale H (Somatoform). The Eating Disorder items are not
scored on any extant MCMI-
III scale and must be reviewed directly. Items 154 and 171
reflect suicide attempts and
suicidal ideation that need to be reviewed any time they are
endorsed or omitted.
APPLICATIONS
As a self-report inventory, the MCMI-111 is used routinely in
clinical settings as well as
correctional and substance abuse settings. However, the MCMI-
III is not to be used "with
normal populations or for purposes other than establishing a
diagnostic screening and
clinical assessment. ... To administer the MCMI-111 to a wider
range of problems or class
of subjects, such as those found in business or industry, or to
identify neurologic lesions, or
to use it for the assessment of general personality traits among
college students is to apply
the instrument to settings and samples for which it is neither
intended nor appropriate"
(Millon et al., 1997, p. 6). Choca (2004) has suggested that
there is nothing wrong with
giving the MCMI-III to normal individuals or other samples on
which the MCMI-III was
not standardized, as long as the clinician keeps in mind the
standardization group to which
the person is being compared.

The MCMI-111 also is used in forensic settings, and several
authors have provided
guidelines for its use (McCann, 2002; Schutte, 2001 ). There
has been substantial debate
whether the MCMI-III meets the federal standards for evidence
in the legal settings with
advocates pro (Craig, 2006; Dyer, 2005) and con (Lally, 2003;
Rogers, Salekin, & Sewell,
1999). Review of these issues is beyond the scope of this text.
The forensic psychologist
does need to be well informed about all these issues before
using the MCMI-III.
administration of the MCMI-III in
forensic settings compared with the more usual clinical setting.
These issues were reviewed
in Chapter 6 on the MMPI-2 (pp. 197-198) and will not be
reiterated here. These issues need
to be considered carefully because the validity (modifier) scales
on the MCMI-III appear
to be relatively insensitive to response distortions (Morgan,
Schoenberg, Dorr, & Burke,
2002; Schoenberg, Dorr, & Morgan, 2003), although
Schoenberg, Dorr, and Morgan (2006)
developed a discriminant function that looked promising in
identifying college students who
were simulating psychopathology.
Millon et al. (1997) have stated that in child-custody settings
when "custody battles
reach the point of requiring psychological evaluation, they
constitute such a degree of
interpersonal difficulty that the evaluation becomes a clinical
matter" (p. 144). McCann,
Flens, and Campagna (2001) have reported normative data for

259 child-custody examinees.
The mean MCMI-III profile for these examinees was an
elevation on Scale Y (Social
Desirability) and subclinical elevations on Scales 4 (Histrionic),
5 (Narcissistic), and 7
(Compulsive). Lampel (1999) reported elevations on the same
four MCMI-III scales in 50
divorcing couples. Halon (2001) has questioned whether
elevations on these four scales in
child-custody samples reflect personality difficulties or normal
personality characteristics.
Age
There are minimal effects of age on any of the MCMI-III scales
(Raddy et al., 2005).
There is a slight tendency for raw scores to decrease slightly
past the age of 50 except on
Scales 4 (Histrionic), 5 (Narcissistic), and 7 (Compulsive). Raw
scores increased slightly
in individuals over 50 on these three scales. Dean and Choca
(2001) reported similar results
when male psychiatric patients were classified as younger (18 to
40) or older (60+). The
older patients had lower scores on all MCMI-III scales except
Scales 4 (Histrionic), 5
(Narcissistic), and 7 (Compulsive).

Gender
Gender does not create any general issues in MCMI-111
interpretation because separate base
rate (BR) scores are used for men and women. Any gender
differences in how individuals
responded to the items on each scale are removed when the raw
scores are converted to
BR scores. Lindsay, Sank.is, and Widiger (2000) reported that
women were more likely to
endorse the items on Scale 4 (Histrionic).
Education
There is no research that has looked at the effects of education
on MCMI-111 scales.
Ethnicity
About 15% of the development and cross-validation for the
MCMI-III were nonwhite.
Millon et al. (1997) reported that some differences were found
for the demographic vari-
ables (unspecified), but these differences appear to reflect
known differences in prevalence
of the disorder. Some ethnic differences were noted on the
MCMI-1 and MCMl-11, but
no published research has looked at the effects of ethnicity on
the MCMI-111. There have
been several dissertations that examined ethnic differences on
the MCMI-111. This ab-
sence of such research on the MCMI-111 is remarkable because
it is so common with the
MMPI/MMPI-2. Until such research is published on the MCMI-
III, the MCMI-III should

be used cautiously with nonwhite individuals.
Reliability
The MCMI-III Manual (Millon et al., 1997, Table 3.3, p. 58)
reports the reliability data for
87 individuals who were retested after an average of 5 to 14
days. The test-retest correlations
ranged from .82 to .96 across the scales with a median of .91,
which is very stable. Measures
of the internal consistency of each scale (Cronbach's Alpha)
also were quite good with only
Table 8.7 Standard error of measurement for MCMI-111 scales
in male psychiatric patients•
Raw Scores
SEM in BR Units at
Base Rate
Scale M SD SEM Alpha* 60 75 85
Personality Styles
J (Schizoid) 9.83 5.52 4.47 .81 3.35 2.23 5.14
2A (Avoidant) 8.94 6.64 5.91 .89 3.56 1.35 3.72
2B (Depressive) 9.58 6.77 6.02 .89 3.32 1.66 4.98
3 (Dependent) 8.55 5.86 4.98 .85 4.01 2.81 5.02
4 (Histrionic) 11.80 5.47 4.43 .81 NA NA NA
5 (Narcissistic) 13.06 4.75 3.18 .67 6.28 5.34 4.71
6A (Antisocial) 10.78 6.02 4.64 .77 3.45 2.59 2.16
6B (Sadistic) 9.67 6.06 4.79 .79 1.04 1.46 5.43

7 (Compulsive) 14.12 5.34 3.52 .66 3.69 NA NA
BA (Negativistic) 10.39 6.51 5.41 .83 4.07 1.48 4.44
BB (Masochistic) 7.32 5.69 4.95 .87 1.62 1.01 5.86
Severe Personality Styles
S (Schizotypal) 8.01 6.65 5.66 .85 1.77 1.77 4.60
C (Borderline) 10.02 6.67 5.67 .85 2.64 3.17 3.53
P (Paranoid) 8.96 6.55 5.50 .84 1.64 4.00 5.45
Clinical Syndromes
A (Anxiety) 8.25 5.71 4.91 .86 5.09 2.65 2.65
H (Somatoform) 7.23 4.76 4.09 .86 1.95 7.33 7.33
N (Bipolar: Manic) 6.99 4.39 3.12 .71 2.57 4.81 6.41
D (Dysthymia) 9.55 6.03 5.31 .88 3.39 1.32 5.65
B (Alcohol Dependence) 8.93 6.00 4.92 .82 3.86 2.03 3.46
T (Drug Dependence) 8.86 6.29 5.22 .83 1.92 5.56 NA
R (PTSD) 8.92 6.47 5.76 .89 1.74 3.47 NA
Severe Clinical Syndromes
SS (Thought Disorder) 8.77 6.15 5.35 .87 l.50 4.68 NA
CC (Major Depression) 9.54 6.61 5.95 .90 1.34 4.20 5.04
PP (Delusional Disorder) 3.79 3.83 3.03 .79 2.64 5.61 7.26
Validity Scales (Modifier Scales)
X (Disclosure) 119.85 34.43 NA NA
Y (Desirability) 11.92 4.74 4.07 .86 6.14 4.91 NA
Z (Debasement) 14.46 8.84 8.40 .95 1.55 1.79 NA
*N = 1,924.
0 Haddy et al. (2005).
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventor y-III 279

six scales (5 [Histrionic]-.67; 6A [Antisocial]-.77; 6B
[Sadistic/Aggressive]-.79; 7
[Compulsive]-.66; N [Bipolar: Manic]-.71; PP [Delusional
Disorder]-.79) below .80.
The standard error of measurement for all MCMI-III scales is
provided in Table 8.7 at BR
scores of 60, 75, and 85 for male psychiatric patients (Haddy et
al., 2005). (There were not
a sufficient number of women in this sample to compute
standard errors of measurement
for them. The standard errors of measurement for raw scor es in
men and women were
generally similar suggesting that the standard errors of
measurement for men could be used
in women, too.) The standard error of measurement was
calculated in raw score units for
each scale and then converted in BR scores at these three
points. For example, the standard
error of measurement for Scale I (Schizoid) is 3.35, 2.23, and
5.14 at BR scores of 60, 75,
and 85, respectively. These values change because the
distribution is not uniform around
these numbers. When the SEM is about 3 BR points for one of
these scales, the individual's
true score will be within ±3 BR points two-thirds of the time.
The standard error of measurement for BR scores around 75
tends to be small, which
means that BR scores above that cutting score are very likely to
remain elevated despite
any error of measurement. On the other hand, the standard error
of measurement for BR
scores around 85 tends to be about twice as large as at 75,
which means that BR scores

above cutting scores of 85 are more likely to change.
The maximum BR score on Scales 4 (Histrionic) and 7
(Compulsive) in men is 84 and
83, respectively. Thus, it is not possible for a man to have a BR
score above 85 on this scale
and the standard error of measurement could not be calculated.
The maximum BR on these
same two scales in women is 92 and 91, respectively.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The MCMI-III is the self-report inventory most widely used to
assess personality disorders.
The MCMI-III should be considered any time the presence of a
personality disorder is
expected in an individual; it is a frequently overlooked set of
diagnoses given the more
dramatic symptoms in most Axis I disorders. Computer scoring
is almost mandatory for
the MCMI-111 given its complexity and time-consuming nature.
Clinicians must understand
the derivation and use of BR scores for the accurate
interpretation of the scale scores.
REFERENCES
(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
(3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
ed., text rev.). Washington, D_C: Author.
M., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI-2:
of Minnesota Press.
https://Disorder]-.79
https://Manic]-.71
https://Compulsive]-.66
https://Sadistic/Aggressive]-.79
https://Antisocial]-.77
https://Histrionic]-.67
Charter, R. A., & Lopez, M. N. (2002). MCMI-III: The inability
of the validity conditions to detect
random responders. Journal ofClinical Psychology, 58, 1615-
1617.
Choca, J. P. (2004). Interpretive guide to the Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory (3rd ed.). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Craig, R. J. (Ed.). (2005). New directions in interpreting the
MCMI-lll: Essays on current issues.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Craig, R. J. (2006). The MCMI-III. In R. P. Archer (Ed.),

Forensic uses of clinical assessment
instruments (pp. 121-145). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dean, K. J., & Choca, J. (2001, August). Psychological changes
of emotionally disturbed men with
age. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, San
Francisco.
Dyer, F. J. (2005). Forensic applications of the MCMI-III in
light of recent controversies. In R.
J. Craig (Ed.), New directions in interpreting the MCMI-lll (pp.
201-226). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
nesota Press.
Grossman, S. D., & de! Rio, C. (2005). The MCMI-III facet
subscales. In R. J. Craig (Ed.), New
directions in interpreting the MCMI-Ill (pp. 3-31). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Haddy, C., Strack, S., & Choca, J. P. (2005). Linking
personality disorders and clinical syndromes
on the MCMI-III. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 84, 193-
204.
Halon, R. L. (2001). The MCMI-III: The normal quartet in child
custody cases. American Journal of
Forensic Psychology, 19, 57-75.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J.C. (1951). MMPI manual. New
York: Psychological Corporation.
Jankowski, D. (2002). A beginner's guide to the MCMI-lll.
Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic
evaluations?: A survey of experts.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 491-498.
Lampel, A. K. (1999). Use of the MCMI-III in evaluating child
custody litigants. American Journal
ofForensic Psychology, 17, 19-31.
Lindsay, K. A., Sankis, L. M., & Widiger, T. A. (2000). Sex and
gender bias in self-report personality
disorder inventories. Journal ofPersonality Disorders, 14, 218-
232.
Mandell, D. (1997). An investigation ofthe effects of item
omissions on the Millon Clinical Multiax-
ial Inventory-II (MCMI-ll). Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Fairleigh Dickinson University,
Teaneck, NJ.
McCann, J. T. (2002). Guidelines for the forensic applications
of the MCMI-III. Journal ofForensic
Psychology Practice, 2, 55-70.
McCann, J. T., Flens, J. T., & Campagna, V. (2001). The
MCMI-III in child custody evaluations: A
normative study. Journal ofForensic Psychology Practice, 1, 27-
44.
Millon, T. (1977). MCMI manual. Minneapolis, MN:

Interpretive Scoring Systems.
Millon, T. (1983). Modern psychopathology: A biosocial
approach to maladaptive learning and
functioning. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Millon, T. ( 1987). Manualfor the MCMI-ll ( 2nd ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1996). Disorders of personality:
DSM-IV and beyond (Rev. ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Millon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (1994). MCMI-Ill manual.
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer
Systems.
Millon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (1997). MCMI-lll manual (
2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National
Computer Systems.
Morgan, C. D., Schoenberg, M. R., Dorr, D., & Burke, M. J.
(2002). Overreport on the MCMI-III:
Concurrent validation with the MMPI-2 using a psychiatric
inpatient sample. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 78, 288-300.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially
desirable responding.Journal ofPersonality
and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
Retzlaff, P. D. (1995). Tactical psychotherapy of the personality

disorders: An MCMI-III-based
approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Retzlaff, P. D., Ofman, P., Hyer, L., & Matheson, S. (1994).
MCMI-11 high-point codes: Severe
personality disorder and clinical syndrome extensions. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 30,
228-234.
Retzlaff, P. D., Stoner, J., & Kleinsasser, D. (2002). The use of
the MCMI-III in the screening and
triage of offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology,
46, 319-332.
Rogers, R., Salekin, R. T., & Sewell, K. W. (1999). Validation
of the MCMI for Axis II disorders:
Does it meet the Daubert standard? Law and Human Behavior,
23, 425-443.
Schoenberg, M. R., Dorr, D., & Morgan, C. D. (2003). The
ability of the MCMI-III to detect
malingering. Psychological Assessment, 15, 198-204.
Schoenberg, M. R., Dorr, D., & Morgan, C. D. (2006).
Development of discriminant functions to
detect dissimulation for the MCMI-111. Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry and Psychology, 17,
405-416.
Schutte, J. W. (2001). Using the MCMI-III in forensic
evaluations. American Journal of Forensic
Strack, S. (2002). Essentials ofMillon inventories assessment.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Chapter 12 THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST Like the Rorscha

More Related Content

Similar to Chapter 12 THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST Like the Rorscha (20)

More from EstelaJeffery653 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Chapter 12 THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST Like the Rorscha