The effect of administration method: A comparison of the Rapaport and Exner Rorschach systems
This study compared two Rorschach administration methods across a number of test variables. With a within‐subjects, counter‐balanced design, 20 female subjects randomly received either an initial Rapaport (Rapaport, Gill, & Schafer, 1968) or an Exner (Exner, 1974, 1986) Rorschach administration....
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical psychology 1995-01, Vol.51 (1), p.100-107 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 107 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 100 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical psychology |
| container_volume | 51 |
| creator | Blais, Mark A. Norman, Dennis K. Quintar, Bady Herzog, David B. |
| description | This study compared two Rorschach administration methods across a number of test variables. With a within‐subjects, counter‐balanced design, 20 female subjects randomly received either an initial Rapaport (Rapaport, Gill, & Schafer, 1968) or an Exner (Exner, 1974, 1986) Rorschach administration. Results showed that the Exner administration produced significantly more Color (C), Shading (Shd), and Blend (B) responses than did the Rapaport administration. Intersystem differences were most prominent on the first presentation of the two administrations. The first Exner administration produced significantly more C, Shd, and Blend responses than did the first Rapaport administration. Findings are discussed in light of their clinical implications, limitations in the experimental design, and suggestions for improving future research. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/1097-4679(199501)51:1<100::AID-JCLP2270510116>3.0.CO;2-A |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77332953</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>77332953</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5046-c5a7fa58d831347350d940fa171f0fb0a1c39d93907eb7ac4a920304695751e83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVUl1v0zAUjRBolMFPQIoQQvCQcq8dx3FBiKob26CiUzXEXtCV6zhqtiYpdirWf4-jVpXYA4gXW_L5ulfHUfQRYYgA7C2CkkmaSfUalRKAbwSO8H2ARqPxxUnyeTK9ZEyCQEDMPvAhDCezdywZP4gGB-nDaBCsMFEyY4-jJ97fAEAKKI6iIylzlmZ8EP24WtrYlqU1XdyWsS7qqql853RXtU1c227ZFqN4HJu2XmtX-fAYaF0QzfVar1vXxbop4tO7xrp43jpvltosY7_1na390-hRqVfePtvfx9G3T6dXk_NkOju7mIyniRGQZuHUstQiL3KOPJVcQKFSKDVKLKFcgEbDVaG4AmkXUptUKwY8KJWQAm3Oj6NXO9-1a39urO-orryxq5VubLvxJCXnTAn-T6KQPEtRQSC-uEe8aTeuCUsQ41muWJb3sdc7knGt986WtHZVrd2WEKjvkfoyqC-Ddj2SQMIeIgo90p89EiegyYwYjYP1833-ZlHb4mC8Ly7gL_e49kavSqcbU_kDjaeZEHm_htnRflUru_2P8f463T0kpCS7lPBz7N0hRbtbyiSXgr5_PaMvJ9P5VF2e0zX_DbjW058</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>236892688</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The effect of administration method: A comparison of the Rapaport and Exner Rorschach systems</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Blais, Mark A. ; Norman, Dennis K. ; Quintar, Bady ; Herzog, David B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Blais, Mark A. ; Norman, Dennis K. ; Quintar, Bady ; Herzog, David B.</creatorcontrib><description>This study compared two Rorschach administration methods across a number of test variables. With a within‐subjects, counter‐balanced design, 20 female subjects randomly received either an initial Rapaport (Rapaport, Gill, & Schafer, 1968) or an Exner (Exner, 1974, 1986) Rorschach administration. Results showed that the Exner administration produced significantly more Color (C), Shading (Shd), and Blend (B) responses than did the Rapaport administration. Intersystem differences were most prominent on the first presentation of the two administrations. The first Exner administration produced significantly more C, Shd, and Blend responses than did the first Rapaport administration. Findings are discussed in light of their clinical implications, limitations in the experimental design, and suggestions for improving future research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9762</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-4679</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/1097-4679(199501)51:1<100::AID-JCLP2270510116>3.0.CO;2-A</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7782463</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JCPYAO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Brandon: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Administration ; Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Bulimia - psychology ; Comparison ; Defense Mechanisms ; Female ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Methodology ; Middle Aged ; Patient Admission ; Personality ; Psychological tests ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychometrics ; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Reproducibility of Results ; Rorschach test ; Rorschach Test - statistics & numerical data ; Techniques and methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical psychology, 1995-01, Vol.51 (1), p.100-107</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1995 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company</rights><rights>1995 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Clinical Psychology Publishing Company, Incorporated Jan 1995</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5046-c5a7fa58d831347350d940fa171f0fb0a1c39d93907eb7ac4a920304695751e83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2F1097-4679%28199501%2951%3A1%3C100%3A%3AAID-JCLP2270510116%3E3.0.CO%3B2-A$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2F1097-4679%28199501%2951%3A1%3C100%3A%3AAID-JCLP2270510116%3E3.0.CO%3B2-A$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,4024,27923,27924,27925,31000,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=3465580$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7782463$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Blais, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Norman, Dennis K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quintar, Bady</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herzog, David B.</creatorcontrib><title>The effect of administration method: A comparison of the Rapaport and Exner Rorschach systems</title><title>Journal of clinical psychology</title><addtitle>J. Clin. Psychol</addtitle><description>This study compared two Rorschach administration methods across a number of test variables. With a within‐subjects, counter‐balanced design, 20 female subjects randomly received either an initial Rapaport (Rapaport, Gill, & Schafer, 1968) or an Exner (Exner, 1974, 1986) Rorschach administration. Results showed that the Exner administration produced significantly more Color (C), Shading (Shd), and Blend (B) responses than did the Rapaport administration. Intersystem differences were most prominent on the first presentation of the two administrations. The first Exner administration produced significantly more C, Shd, and Blend responses than did the first Rapaport administration. Findings are discussed in light of their clinical implications, limitations in the experimental design, and suggestions for improving future research.</description><subject>Administration</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Bulimia - psychology</subject><subject>Comparison</subject><subject>Defense Mechanisms</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patient Admission</subject><subject>Personality</subject><subject>Psychological tests</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Rorschach test</subject><subject>Rorschach Test - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Techniques and methods</subject><issn>0021-9762</issn><issn>1097-4679</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqVUl1v0zAUjRBolMFPQIoQQvCQcq8dx3FBiKob26CiUzXEXtCV6zhqtiYpdirWf4-jVpXYA4gXW_L5ulfHUfQRYYgA7C2CkkmaSfUalRKAbwSO8H2ARqPxxUnyeTK9ZEyCQEDMPvAhDCezdywZP4gGB-nDaBCsMFEyY4-jJ97fAEAKKI6iIylzlmZ8EP24WtrYlqU1XdyWsS7qqql853RXtU1c227ZFqN4HJu2XmtX-fAYaF0QzfVar1vXxbop4tO7xrp43jpvltosY7_1na390-hRqVfePtvfx9G3T6dXk_NkOju7mIyniRGQZuHUstQiL3KOPJVcQKFSKDVKLKFcgEbDVaG4AmkXUptUKwY8KJWQAm3Oj6NXO9-1a39urO-orryxq5VubLvxJCXnTAn-T6KQPEtRQSC-uEe8aTeuCUsQ41muWJb3sdc7knGt986WtHZVrd2WEKjvkfoyqC-Ddj2SQMIeIgo90p89EiegyYwYjYP1833-ZlHb4mC8Ly7gL_e49kavSqcbU_kDjaeZEHm_htnRflUru_2P8f463T0kpCS7lPBz7N0hRbtbyiSXgr5_PaMvJ9P5VF2e0zX_DbjW058</recordid><startdate>199501</startdate><enddate>199501</enddate><creator>Blais, Mark A.</creator><creator>Norman, Dennis K.</creator><creator>Quintar, Bady</creator><creator>Herzog, David B.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Periodicals Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199501</creationdate><title>The effect of administration method: A comparison of the Rapaport and Exner Rorschach systems</title><author>Blais, Mark A. ; Norman, Dennis K. ; Quintar, Bady ; Herzog, David B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5046-c5a7fa58d831347350d940fa171f0fb0a1c39d93907eb7ac4a920304695751e83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Administration</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Bulimia - psychology</topic><topic>Comparison</topic><topic>Defense Mechanisms</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patient Admission</topic><topic>Personality</topic><topic>Psychological tests</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Rorschach test</topic><topic>Rorschach Test - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Techniques and methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Blais, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Norman, Dennis K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quintar, Bady</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herzog, David B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Blais, Mark A.</au><au>Norman, Dennis K.</au><au>Quintar, Bady</au><au>Herzog, David B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The effect of administration method: A comparison of the Rapaport and Exner Rorschach systems</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical psychology</jtitle><addtitle>J. Clin. Psychol</addtitle><date>1995-01</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>100</spage><epage>107</epage><pages>100-107</pages><issn>0021-9762</issn><eissn>1097-4679</eissn><coden>JCPYAO</coden><abstract>This study compared two Rorschach administration methods across a number of test variables. With a within‐subjects, counter‐balanced design, 20 female subjects randomly received either an initial Rapaport (Rapaport, Gill, & Schafer, 1968) or an Exner (Exner, 1974, 1986) Rorschach administration. Results showed that the Exner administration produced significantly more Color (C), Shading (Shd), and Blend (B) responses than did the Rapaport administration. Intersystem differences were most prominent on the first presentation of the two administrations. The first Exner administration produced significantly more C, Shd, and Blend responses than did the first Rapaport administration. Findings are discussed in light of their clinical implications, limitations in the experimental design, and suggestions for improving future research.</abstract><cop>Brandon</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>7782463</pmid><doi>10.1002/1097-4679(199501)51:1<100::AID-JCLP2270510116>3.0.CO;2-A</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0021-9762 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical psychology, 1995-01, Vol.51 (1), p.100-107 |
| issn | 0021-9762 1097-4679 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77332953 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); EBSCOhost Education Source |
| subjects | Administration Adult Biological and medical sciences Bulimia - psychology Comparison Defense Mechanisms Female Humans Medical sciences Methodology Middle Aged Patient Admission Personality Psychological tests Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychometrics Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems Psychopathology. Psychiatry Reproducibility of Results Rorschach test Rorschach Test - statistics & numerical data Techniques and methods |
| title | The effect of administration method: A comparison of the Rapaport and Exner Rorschach systems |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T08%3A25%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20effect%20of%20administration%20method:%20A%20comparison%20of%20the%20Rapaport%20and%20Exner%20Rorschach%20systems&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20psychology&rft.au=Blais,%20Mark%20A.&rft.date=1995-01&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=100&rft.epage=107&rft.pages=100-107&rft.issn=0021-9762&rft.eissn=1097-4679&rft.coden=JCPYAO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/1097-4679(199501)51:1%3C100::AID-JCLP2270510116%3E3.0.CO;2-A&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E77332953%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=236892688&rft_id=info:pmid/7782463&rfr_iscdi=true |