1 RPAS Administration Guidelines to Optimize R This ... - Psychology

RPAS Administration Guidelines to Optimize R
This brief guide presumes the reader has a basic familiarity with Exner's (2001) Comprehensive System
for the Rorschach. Without that background, some of the following material is likely to be confusing.
It is well documented that there is considerable variability in the number of responses (R) people give to
the Rorschach and that many frequency-based scores (e.g., Dd, FM, WSum6) are correlated with R
(Meyer, 1992; Meyer & Viglione, 2008; Viglione & Meyer, 2008). This association with R increases
error variance because the scores rise and fall in tandem with R and not directly as a result of the
specific personality features thought to be measured by those scores. As a result, R is a confounding
variable that reduces interpretive accuracy in practice and impedes research progress. In addition, for
clinical applications the normative mean values for adults, whether considering country-specific findings
(see the JPA Supplement by Shaffer, Erdberg, and Meyer, 2007) or the Composite International
Reference Values (Meyer, Erdberg, and Shaffer, 2007), fit best when a protocol has about 18 to 28
responses. In other words, the existing norms do not apply well to people who produce short (14-17) or
long (30+) protocols. Finally, current administration procedures require the task to be re-administered
when a person gives fewer than 14 responses. For both parties, re-administration is confusing and time
consuming. The respondent often does not repeat already stated information, and the administrator does
not know what to do with responses or elaborations to parts of responses that were given initially but not
on re-administration.
Therefore, to increase interpretive accuracy, to help normative values provide a good fit to more
individuals, and to avoid having to re-administer the task, it is desirable to optimize the range of R. To
do so we recommend a flexible procedure, one that continues to allow the administrator to obtain
meaningful information from the extent to which people vary in their response productivity. This
procedure has four elements.
1) First, as part of the standard instructions (see below), when introducing the task say "Try to give
two responses, or maybe three, to each card. That is, on each card try to see two, or maybe
three, different things."
2) Second, during administration use the "Prompt for Two, Pull after Four" guideline, which
increases R on the low end and decreases R on the high end. Instructions are as follows:
a. Prompts: When given just one response on any card, request another. Suitable prompts
could include: "Take your time; there's no hurry. Look some more to see something else
too."; "Thanks, but give it some more time. Look longer and try to see something different
too."; or "There's no rush. Take your time and see if you see anything else also;" or "We
would like two responses; please try to give another."
b. Pulls: Once the person gives four responses, request that she or he return the card. Extend
your hand to the person and say something like "Alright, that's good; let’s do the next
one." or "Thanks, that's all we need on this one." To preserve rapport you may decide to
inquire additional responses that are given after the first four, however, they would not be
included in the summary data. Also, note that the term "pull" to describe this tactic might
be misleading if taken literally. A good working alliance with the respondent is essential
so don't actually grab and pull a card from the person's hands.
3) Third, during administration, record behavior related to the prompts and pulls. Even though the
administration guidelines provide more structure than in the past, some respondents will still give
fewer than two or more than four responses on a card. As such, record how often you prompt
(Pr) for a second response and how often you pull (Pu) after four. In terms of recording pulls
(Pu), note each time that you request that the person discontinue after four responses. Be sure to
also note on the verbatim transcript if the person persists in giving an additional response after
such a request. Knowing how often the administration boundaries are crossed will provide
clinically helpful information about characteristics associated with cooperation and productivity
© 2010 RPAS 1

when they are low (e.g., resistance or limited resources) and high (e.g., fluid, affectively driven
responding).
4) Fourth, to help ensure a sufficient pool of responses for interpretation, if you do not obtain 14 or
more responses initially, retain all the initial responses but go through all cards again with
encouragement for the respondent to give a few more responses. Unlike standard CS
administration, use the responses from the first administration but administer the cards again and
collect the extra responses that are spontaneously given. Once this is done, complete the inquiry
based on the order of the responses within a card, not the order in which the responses were
obtained. Although it is quite unlikely to occur, if the respondent produces fewer than 16
responses say something like:
a. "That was fine. However, we need a few more responses in order for this test to be most
helpful. So let's go through the cards again. Take your time when looking at them. I'm
sure you will be able to see some more things." Hand the respondent, the first card and
say, "What else might this be?" Say this only once. During this second administration no
prompts or pulls are given. Rejections are accepted. Although this approach complicates
how a sequence analysis interpretation would be conducted, it reduces demands on the
examinee compared to redoing the whole test and this is likely to preserve the alliance
and reduce the added frustration or discouragement that could affect their scores on a
second administration.
When it is time to administer the Rorschach, say the following, "Now we are going to take the inkblot
test. I will hand the inkblots to you one at a time and your task is to look at each card to answer the
question "What might this be?" Does that make sense?" If the answer is no, find out what is unclear and
address the issue. If the answer is yes, say the following: "Good. We can get started then. Try to give
two responses, or maybe three, to each card. That is, for each card try to see two, or maybe three,
different things." Next, hand Card I in the upright position to the respondent and say just the following
four words: "What might this be?"
Use clinical judgment to balance the need for consistent administration guidelines and the need for
personal rapport and a good working alliance with the respondent. For instance, although we note that it
may make sense to inquire one or several responses that happen to come after the fourth, if a respondent
consistently gives extra responses, it may be most reasonable to explain at the start of the inquiry that
you will only be asking about the first four to each card.
Research on an early version of the "Prompt for Two, Pull after Four" guideline showed that it
eliminated the need to re-administer the test because of short protocols and it increased the validity of
Rorschach measures of thought disorder and psychosis (Dean, Viglione, Perry, & Meyer, 2007).
© 2010 RPAS 2