Métodos Projetivos e Avaliação Psicológica - BVS Psicologia ...

113standard deviations below five. Records with fewer than 17 responses are extremely rare andthe great majority of records are under 35 responses. It produces a much greater proportion ofthe records in the psychometrically optimal range from 18 to 27. Thus, the R distributionproduced in R‐PAS limits the effect of R on other variables so that it reduces the interpretiveerror associated with variability in R.From another perspective R‐Optimized administration in R‐PAS offers the potential forboth less examiner variability and more uniformity across sites and countries. We are findingvirtually no effect on the means of individual variables (Reese et al. 2012; Viglione et al., inpreparation). In other words, individual variables do not differ when compared across CS and R‐PAS R‐Optimized administration. Apparently, the impact of the R‐Optimized administration isminimized because it is shared among all variables.Examiner VariabilityExaminer Variability is a problem with Rorschach administration. Reducing the impact ofthe examiner on the data is important to make the Rorschach as objective as possible.As an extension of the normative problems addressed in above, there are also largedifferences in about a third of the variables between the (a) between more recently publishedExner (2007) CS sample of 450 and (b) the Shafer and Erdberg (2007) sample. Our research intothese differences reveals that this divergence is caused by coding differences between sites andexaminers (Meyer, Viglione, Erdberg, Exner, & Shaffer, 2004). As another example, in the largeinternational sample (Meyer et al, 2007) some examiners averaged about 11 Zf responses,others 15 or 16. Some produced a mean X‐% of .06 or .07, others produced a mean of .15. Toaddress such variability in CS coding, the Rorschach Coding Solutions reference book waswritten in 2002 and slightly revised in 2010 (Viglione, 2002, 2010).There are more direct examiner effects on administration. For example in theinternational sample, examiner differences were evident in number of responses. Someexaminers averaged 20 responses, others 27. Differences in the Inquiry Phase are particulartroublesome and largely unknown, but we do know that experts have different thresholds foridentifying key words (Koonce, Meyer, Viglione, 2008).