Métodos Projetivos e Avaliação Psicológica - BVS Psicologia ...

108The codes, counts, and calculations, ( e.g., the R‐PAS variables) include many familiarand unfamiliar names and symbols. The review of the empirical literature for R‐PAS led to ourincluding some new, well researched and well supported variables that are not found in the CS.These include, for example, Mutuality of Autonomy (Urist, 1977) and the Ego Impairment Index(Perry, Minassian, Cadenhead, Sprock, & Braff, 2003, Perry & Viglione, 1991; Viglione, Perry, &Meyer, 2003). The Ego Impairment Index has generated considerable interest in Brazil andother countries (Nascimento, 2008). Some variables are renamed, with the goal to make thenames and symbols more transparent, more continuity from coding to calculation, moreuniform, easier to learn and to remember, at least in English (e.g., Sy for Synthesis, for DQ+).Some variables are restructured or calculated differently or more consistently. For example,virtually all percentages are now percentages of R divided by the total number of responses. Sothat, F% is F divided by R, and it replaces Lambda (Meyer, Viglione, & Exner, 2001) All ratios arepresented as proportions, with the larger term in the denominator, so that they range fromzero to one. For example, the R‐PAS version of Rorschach’s (1921) Erlebnistypsus is not HumanMovement compared to Weighted Sum of Color in a ratio. It is named M/MC or “M to MC” andit is Human Movement divided by the sum of Human Movement plus the weighted sum ofcolor. It is thus, easier to remember for new learners and relieves them of having to learnanother term and concept, Erlebnistypsus. Many variables are retained with the same nameand symbol.Inaccurate NormsThe Comprehensive System N of 600 non‐patient reference data (Exner, 2003) areunique in Rorschach history, in that they have served as normative foundation in the U.S, andalso to some extent internationally. But research has demonstrated that the internationallycollected data and non‐patients and control groups from published research differ fromstandard CS norms for about a third of the variables (Shaffer, Erdberg, & Haroian, 1999;Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001; Viglione & Meyer, 2008; Wood, Nezworski, Garb, & Lilienfeld,2001). The CS norms diverge greatly from everybody else’s data on approximately one third ofthe variables, and all the other samples cohere, with only the CS norms as an outlier. The