Métodos Projetivos e Avaliação Psicológica - BVS Psicologia ...

116Frequency is measured simply by counting the number of times a given response isproduced at a particular location by people actually taking the test. If many people give aresponse, it is assumed that it is accurate and easy to see. To count frequencies, R‐PAS usesnon‐patient data from four countries again including Brazil (Villemor‐Amaral, Yazigi,Nascimento, Primi, & Semer, 2007) but also Argentina (Lunazzi, Urrutia, García de la Fuente,Elías, Fernández, De La Fuente, Bianco, & Sarachu, 2011), Italy (Parisi, Pes, & Cicioni, 2005),Japan (Takahashi, Takahashi, & Nishio, 2009), and a fifth outpatient sample from Spain (MirallesSangro, 1996, 1997), for a total almost 2,800 cases. Putting fit and frequency together, accurateor FQo response fit or match the blot area well, are frequent, and easily seen. Mistaken,distorted FQ‐ responses do not conform to the blot area contours, are infrequent and difficultto see.Thus, for this new Form Quality system, R‐PAS integrates an enormous amount ofinternational data from many countries, numerous raters, and multiple languages. Thedevelopment of the table began with a modified list of the 5060 entries in the CS FQ tablefound in the CS workbook (Exner, 2003). To produce this list of FQ entries, the RorschachResearch Council members reviewed and revised the original table entries in the CS workbookto reduce irregularities, inconsistencies, obvious omissions, and redundancies. The goal of thisreview was to increase ease of use for Rorschach practitioners and researchers.CS FQ assignment to table entries were then updated or revised based on ourcontemporary fit and frequency data. In other words, starting with the FQ ratings in themodified Rorschach Research Council CS table, Form Quality ratings were adjusted up foraccurate, good fit and high frequency responses, i.e., from FQ‐ up to FQu, or FQu up to FQo. FQwas moved down for poor fit ratings and infrequent responses, i.e., from FQo to FQu and formFQu to FQ‐. There was a lot of change, 40% of R‐PAS FQ assignments differ from what is foundin the CS. Also, the R‐PAS FQ table itself lists 5% fewer FQ‐ entries and 5% more FQu entries. Ofnotable importance the R‐RPAS FQ‐% or X‐% non‐patient mean is lower at 9%, compared to19% for the CS FQ. Thus, on the average, FQ‐ objects in R‐PAS are more distorted andinaccurate than in the CS.