The Rorschach Rating Scale: Item Adequacy, Scale ... - Psychology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 5Prediction of RRS Scales From Forced Entry of All B5M ScalesCriterion Scale R 2 RRRS Factor-Derived Scales1. Narcissism, Aggression, and Dominance .53 .732. Perceptual Distortions and Thought Disorder .30 .553. Passive Dependence, Vulnerability, and Inferiority .34 .584. Emotional Health and Coping Effectiveness .41 .645. Social and Emotional Engagement .37 .616. Intellectual Defenses and Obsessive Character .11 .33M .34 .57RRS Factor Scores1. Narcissism, Aggression, and Dominance .41 .642. Perceptual Distortions and Thought Disorder .14 .373. Passive Dependence, Vulnerability, and Inferiority .36 .604. Emotional Health and Coping Effectiveness .25 .505. Social and Emotional Engagement .49 .706. Intellectual Defenses and Obsessive Character .11 .33M .29 .52RRS Conceptually Derived ScalesRRS Neuroticism .58 .76RRS Extraversion–Sociability .58 .76RRS Openness–Emotional Sensitivity .46 .68RRS Agreeableness Versus Hostility .65 .81RRS Conscientiousness–Thoroughness .43 .65Defensive Avoidance of Negative Affect .12 .35Perceptual Distortions .41 .64Diffuse Psychological Boundaries .50 .71Polarized Self- and Object-Representations .50 .71Narcissism .57 .76Effective Coping .48 .69Global, Vague, and Impressionistic Thinking .39 .62Formal Thought Disorder .26 .51Gaps in Memory or Experience .19 .43Emotional Spontaneity .22 .47Dependent Needs for Others .31 .55Projection and Projective Identification .51 .71Sexual Preoccupations .12 .35Attention to Small/Unusual Details .30 .54M .40 .62Note. N = 224. RRS = Rorschach Rating Scale; B5M = Big Five model. The final R and R 2 valueswere quite similar when B5M factor scores were used rather than B5M scales derived from the sum ofraw scores. Consequently, results for the B5M factor scores were not presented.222Copyright © 2000 All Rights Reserved
RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 223TABLE 6Prediction of B5M Scales From Forced Entry of RRS ScalesCriterion ScaleType of Criterion and Predictors N E I/O A C MR 2 valuesB5M factor scoresRRS factor-derived scales .39 .18 .23 .46 .11 .27RRS factor scores .45 .28 .32 .57 .12 .35RRS conceptually derived scales .53 .36 .29 .60 .27 .41B5M scalesRRS factor-derived scales .53 .22 .30 .57 .32 .39RRS factor scores .58 .34 .39 .67 .35 .47RRS conceptually derived scales .62 .40 .37 .69 .45 .51R valuesB5M factor scoresRRS factor-derived scales .63 .43 .48 .68 .33 .51RRS factor scores .67 .53 .57 .75 .35 .57RRS conceptually derived scales .73 .60 .53 .78 .52 .63B5M scalesRRS factor-derived scales .73 .47 .55 .76 .57 .62RRS factor scores .76 .58 .62 .82 .59 .67RRS conceptually derived scales .79 .63 .61 .83 .67 .71Note. N = 224. B5M = Big Five model; RRS = Rorschach Rating Scale. N = Neuroticism; E =Extraversion; I/O = Intellect/Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness.tics showed that accurate completion of the RRS requires a good vocabulary and13th-grade reading comprehension skills. Although these requirements are higherthan those for common self-report inventories (Schinka & Borum, 1993), they aresimilar to requirements for other observer-rating instruments such as the originalCCQ (Caspi et al., 1992). The readability findings are also consistent with our initialintention to have the RRS completed by skilled clinicians (Meyer, 1996a), andclinicians with graduate education should be able to complete it without difficulty.However, one should exercise caution when obtaining RRS ratings from poorly educatedlay raters.College students generated about two thirds of the ratings used in this study, andwe do not know what level of reading comprehension they possessed. Furthermore,the RRS asks about constructs that people without training in psychopathology mayfind difficult to evaluate in a differentiated and exact manner. Consequently, oursample may have produced somewhat unsophisticated ratings that may have led to amore diffuse pattern of relations among variables and, ultimately, to less differentiatedfactorstructures.Surprisingly,theextenttowhichthefactorstructuresforclinicalconstructs may vary as a function of rater skill and clinical acumen has not yetbeen the focus of systematic research (Block, 1995; Westen, 1995). Instead, virtu-Copyright © 2000 All Rights Reserved
Page 1 and 2: JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT,
Page 3 and 4: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 201o
Page 5 and 6: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 203M
Page 7 and 8: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 205b
Page 9 and 10: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 207r
Page 13 and 14: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 211C
Page 15 and 16: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 213d
Page 17 and 18: TABLE 3Factor Solution for the RRS
Page 19 and 20: TABLE 4Factor Solution for the Conc
Page 21 and 22: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 219q
Page 23: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 221P
Page 27 and 28: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 225s
Page 29 and 30: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 227d
Page 31 and 32: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 229M
Page 33 and 34: RORSCHACH RATING SCALE AND B5M 2318
Page 45 and 46: APPENDIX BIntercorrelations Among t

The Rorschach Rating Scale: Item Adequacy, Scale ... - Psychology

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?