Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Projective Assessment and School Psychology: Contemporary Validity Issues and Implications for Practice

  • General Article
  • Published:
The California School Psychologist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Projective techniques continue to be widely used by school psychologists despite frequent criticisms of their use. This article reviews contemporary validity issues in the use of projective techniques with children and adolescents, including incremental validity, treatment validity, and problems associated with professional judgment and experience. A discussion of these issues and their implications for school-based projective assessment is provided, along with recommendations for the appropriate use of projective techniques with children and youth within a problem-solving framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, J. C., & Hollifield, J. (2003). Using the Rorschach with children and adolescents: The Exner comprehensive system. In C.R. Reynolds and R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Personality, behavior, and context (pp. 182–197). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, R. P., & Gordon, R. A. (1988). MMPI and Rorschach indices of schizophrenic and depressive diagnoses among adolescent inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 276–287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, R. P., & Krishnamurthy, R. (1997). MMPI-A and Rorschach indices related to depression and conduct disorder: An evaluation of the incremental validity hypothesis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 517–533.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bardos, A. N. (1993). Human figure drawings: Abusing the abused. School Psychology Quarterly, 8, 177–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, D. W. (1988). Professional judgment: A critical appraisal. School Psychology Review, 17, 658–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batsche, G. M., & Peterson, D. W. (1983). School psychology andprojective assessment: A growing incompatibility. School Psychology Review, 12, 440–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braden, J. P., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1997). Treatment utility and assessment: Myths and realities. School Psychology Review, 26, 475–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Chidsey (Ed.). (2005). Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J. N., Mineka, S., & Hooley, J. M. (2007). Abnormal psychology (13th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1960). Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait, or discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15, 546–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, L. A. (2003). The projective hypothesis and the development of projective techniques for children. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Personality, behavior, and context (pp. 51–65). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheramie, G. M., Griffin, K. M., & Morgan, T. (2000). Usefulness of assessment techniques in assessing classification for emotional disturbance and generating classroom recommendations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 250–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1957). Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. A. (1986). Projective drawings. In H. M. Knoff (Ed.), The assessment of child and adolescent personality (pp. 199–244). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey, B. L., & Cassell, W. A. (2000). Inkblot responses as an aide to therapy. Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health, 7, 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupree, J. L., & Prevatt, F. (2003). Projective storytelling techniques. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Personality, behavior, and context (pp. 66–90). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckert, T. L., Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1997). School psychologists’ acceptability of behavioral and traditional assessment procedures for externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 150–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system (4th edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, R., & Esquivel, G. B. (2006). Empirical and clinical methods in the assessment of personality and psychopathology: An integrative approach to training. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 513–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garb, H. N. (1989). Clinical judgment, clinical training, and professional experience. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 387–396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garb, H. N. (2003). Incremental validity and the assessment of psychopathology in adults. Psychological Assessment, 15, 508–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garb, H. N., Lilienfield, S. O., & Wood, J. M. (2004). Projective techniques and behavioral assessment. In S. N. Haynes & E. M. Heiby (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, volume 3: Behavioral assessment (pp. 453–469). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittelman-Klein, R. (1978). Validity of projective tests for psychodiagnosis in children. In R. L. Spitzer & D. F. Klein (Eds.), Critical issues in psychiatric diagnosis (pp. 141–166). New York: Raven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittelman-Klein, R. (1986). Questioning the clinical usefulness of projective psychological tests for children. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 7, 378–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graybill, D., & Blackwood, A. (1996). Prediction of adolescent aggression by childhood personality measures: A comparison of projective procedures, self-report tests, and behavior ratings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 61–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, F. M. (1993). “What’s wrong in this picture?”: Response to Motta et al.’s review of human figure drawings. School Psychology Quarterly, 8, 182–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, F. M. (2003). Establishing the technical adequacy of functional behavioral assessment: Conceptual and measurement challenges. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 282–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, F. M., Watson, T. S., & Skinner, C. H. (2001). Functional behavioral assessment: Principles, procedures, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 30, 156–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. R. (2004). Rorschach technique. In T. S. Watson & C. H. Skinner (Eds), Encyclopedia of school psychology (p. 273). New York, NY: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, R. K. (1972). An investigation of the incremental validity of human figure drawings in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 10, 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Nelson, R. O., & Jarrett, R. B. (1987). The treatment utility of assessment: A functional approach to evaluating assessment quality. American Psychologist, 42, 963–974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, S. N. (1993). Treatment implications of psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 5, 251–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hojnoski, R. L., Morrison, R., Brown, M., & Matthews, W. J. (2006). Projective test use among school psychologists: A survey and critique. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, R. R. (1980). Loevinger’s measure of ego development: Reliability and national norms for male and female short forms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 909–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. (2002). Regional differences in school psychology practice. School Psychology Review, 31, 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15, 446–455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janson, H., & Stattin, H. (2003). Prediction of adolescent and adult delinquency from childhood Rorschach ratings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 51–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, C., & Murray, C. (2003). Incremental validity in the psychological assessment of children and adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 15, 496–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (1997). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues, 4th edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. L., Faust, D., Willis, W. G., & Piotrowski, C. (1994). Social-emotional assessment practices in school psychology. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 228–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2002). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoff, H. M. (2002). Best practices in personality assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 1281–1302). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoff, H. M. (2003). Evaluation of projective drawings. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Personality, behavior, and context (pp. 91–158). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoff, H. M., & Prout, H. T. (1985). Kinetic drawing system for family and school: A handbook. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppitz, E. M. (1975). The Bender Gestalt Test for young children volume II: Research and application, 1963–1973. New York: Grune & Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwill, T. R., & McGivern, J. E. (1996). Clinical diagnosis, behavioral assessment, and functional analysis: Examining the connection between assessment and intervention. School Psychology Review, 25, 342–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, P. M. (2000). Martin Mayman: His work and his place. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 33–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfield, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 27–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmann, G. M., & Barnett, D. W. (1999). Diagnostic decision making in school psychology: Understanding and coping with uncertainty. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology, 3rd edition (pp. 519–548). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mash, E. J., & Hunsley, J. (2005). Evidence-based assessment of child and adolescent disorders: Issues and challenges. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 362–379.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mash, E. J., & Terdal, L. G. (1997). Assessment of childhood disorders, 3rd edition. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConaughy, S. H. (2005). Clinical interviews for children and adolescents: Assessment to intervention. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConaughy, S. H., & Achenbach, T. M. (2001). Manual for the Semistructured Clinical Interview for Children and Adolescents (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConaughy, S. H., & Ritter, D. R. (2002). Best practices in multidimensional assessment of emotional or behavioral disorders. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 1303–1320). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1959). Some ruminations on the validation of clinical procedures. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 102–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrell, K. W. (2003). Behavioral, social, and emotional assessment of children and adolescents, 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrell, K. W., Ervin, R. A., & Gimpel, G. A. (2006). School psychology for the 21st century: Foundations and practices. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G. J. (2000). On the science of Rorschach research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75, 46–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G. J., & Archer, R. P. (2001). The hard science or Rorschach research: What do we know and where do we go? Psychological Assessment, 13, 486–502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Motta, R. W., Little, S. G., & Tobin, M. I. (1993). The use and abuse of human figure drawings. School Psychology Quarterly, 8, 162–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G. (2002). Intuition: Its powers and perils. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naglieri, J. A. (1993). Human figure drawings in perspective. School Psychology Quarterly, 8, 170–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naglieri, J. A., McNeish, T. J., & Bardos, A. N. (1991). Draw A Person: Screening procedure for emotional disturbance. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson-Gray, R. O. (2003). Treatment utility of psychological assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15, 521–531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ornberg, B., & Zalewski, C. (1994). Assessment of adolescents with the Rorschach: A critical review. Assessment, 1, 209–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paniagua, F. A. (1998). Assessing and treating culturally diverse clients: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prevatt, F. F. (1999). Personality assessment in the schools. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd edition) (pp. 434–451). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prout, H. T., & Ferber, S. M. (1988). Analogue assessment: Traditional personality assessment measures in behavioral assessment. In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Behavioral assessment in schools: Conceptual foundations and practical applications (pp. 322–350). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Assessment in special and remedial education, 8th edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, F., & Lazar, A. (1979). The scientific status of the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 3–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sechrest, L. (1963). Incremental validity: A recommendation. Educational and psychological measurement, 23, 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. S., & Heick, P. F. (2004). School psychologist assessment practices in the evaluation of students referred for social/behavioral/emotional problems. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 551–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. S., & Kratochwill, T. R. (Eds.). (2000). Conducting school-based assessments of child and adolescent behavior. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivec, H. J., & Hilsenroth, M. J. (1994). The use of the hand test with children and adolescents: A review. School Psychology Review, 23, 526–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, K. D. (1990). Childhood depression: School-based intervention. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teglasi, H. (2001). Essentials of TAT and other storytelling assessment techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolor, A., & Brannigan, G. G. (1980). Research and clinical applications of the Bender Gestalt test. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viglione, D. J., & Hilsenroth, M. J. (2001). The Rorschach: Facts, fictions, and future. Psychological Assessment, 13, 452–471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, E. E. (1986). Hand test interpretation for children and adolescents. In A. I. Rabin (Ed.), Projective techniques for adolescents and children (pp. 279–305). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westen, D. (1998). The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 333–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. S., & Reschly, D. J. (1996). Assessment in school psychology training and practice. School Psychology Review, 25, 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., & Garb, H. N. (2003). What’s right with the Rorschach? The scientific review of mental health practice, 2, 142–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalof, J., Abraham, P., Domingos, B., & Socket, B. (2001). Re-examining the Rorschach test in school psychology practice. The School Psychologist, 55, 97, 100–102, 110–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S., Rosenfield, S., & Telzrow, C. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for training and practice III. Retrieved August 1, 2006 from http://www.naspcenter.org/blueprint/FinalBlueprintInteriors.pdf

  • Zlotogorski, Z., & Wiggs, E. (1986). Story- and sentence-completion techniques. In A. I. Rabin (Ed.), Projective techniques for adolescents and children (pp. 195–211). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University at Albany, State University of New York, ED 240, Albany, NY, 12222, USA

    David N. Miller & Amanda B. Nickerson

Authors
  1. David N. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda B. Nickerson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David N. Miller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, D.N., Nickerson, A.B. Projective Assessment and School Psychology: Contemporary Validity Issues and Implications for Practice. Contemp School Psychol 11, 73–84 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03341117

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03341117

Keywords

Search

Navigation