China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
“Listening to the Music of the Mind”
Published in Meidan Turel, Michael Siglag, Alexander Grinshpoon, Clinical Psychology in the Mental Health Inpatient Setting, 2019
The Rorschach Inkblot Test can provide various forms of data to aid the clinician in diagnosing a severe mental disorder. It can be particularly useful in helping to detect severe mood disturbance and subtle psychotic thought processes (Weiner, 1966, 1998) that may be missed in an initial interview (Cohen, 2007). Though the 10 inkblots have remained unchanged since Hermann Rorschach picked them from a larger collection based partly upon his work with both non-clinical and schizophrenic adults, many methods for scoring have been used; these include Rapaport, Gill, and Schafer (1946), Schafer (1954), and Klopfer (1946). The use of the Exner Comprehensive System (2002) and the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (Meyer et al., 2011) currently provide extensive psychometric data and a large body of empirical literature to support the validity and reliability of the assessment.
HYPNOTIC RESPONSIVENESS AND NONHYPNOTIC SUGGESTIBILITY: DISPARATE, SIMILAR, OR THE SAME?
Published in International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 2020
Anthony F. Tasso, Nicole A. Pérez, Mark Moore, Robert Griffo, Michael R. Nash
The next two factor analytic studies (Benton & Bandura, 1953; Grimes, 1948) not only failed to support a two-factor model of suggestibility but failed to identify any meaningful factor structure at all. Grimes (1948) administered 16 suggestibility-related tests to 233 orphan boys (ages 8–15). He used three tests from Eysenck and Furneaux (1945) study: progressive weights (personal and impersonal) and the odor test. Grimes’s results reveal weak correlations between the 16 measures of suggestibility, leaving no justification for extracting any factor structure. Benton and Bandura (1953) administered nine suggestibility tests to 50 undergraduate students (25 males, 25 females) with seven measures used by Eysenck and Furneaux (picture report test, inkblot test, progressive weights [personal and impersonal], body sway, press test, and release test), and only two that had been used by Grimes (personal and impersonal progressive weights). Results align with Grimes’s (1948) findings: no clear factor structure. Two possible explanations for the disparate findings are test selection (some overlapping, some not) and participant selection (disabled army veterans versus orphaned boys versus college students). Regardless of the reason(s), the results indicate that the structure of suggestibility was anything but clear.
Personality Constructs and Paradigms in the Alternative DSM-5 Model of Personality Disorder
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2018
Abby L. Mulay, Nicole M. Cain, Mark H. Waugh, Christopher J. Hopwood, Jonathan M. Adler, Darren J. Garcia, John E. Kurtz, Katherine A. Lenger, Rebecca Skadberg
Drawing on the Kuhnian concept of paradigm, Wiggins (2003) compared and contrasted major schools of thought and approaches in personality assessment. According to Kuhn (1970), paradigms define what constitute accepted foci, methods, and standards of evidence in science. Importantly, paradigms are organized around exemplar methods or approaches. Using these ideas, Wiggins (2003) articulated five major traditions in personality assessment: the psychodynamic, interpersonal, personological, multivariate, and empirical. The psychodynamic paradigm emphasizes the role of the dynamic unconscious (e.g., inner conflict), includes contemporary developments in object relations (Greenberg, 1983) and self-psychology (Kohut, 1979/2012), and emblematically uses assessment instruments such as the Rorschach Inkblot Test and the ego psychological approach of assessment across degrees of structure (Allison, Blatt, & Zimel, 1988). It should be noted that the Rorschach method is not restricted to a psychodynamic approach, and contemporary Rorschach systems emphasize its empirical basis (e.g., Comprehensive System [CS; Exner et al., 2008]; Rorschach Performance Assessment System [R-PAS; Meyer, Erard, Erdberg, Mihura, & Viglione, 2011]). The personological paradigm derives from the case study tradition and relies on qualitative, narrative data and focuses on subjectivity (e.g., McAdams & West, 1997) and takes a psychobiographical approach (Alexander, 1990). The interpersonal paradigm originates from the classic work of Sullivan (1953/2013), and uses exemplar methodology such as the interpersonal circumplex (IPC; Leary, 1957) and the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB; Benjamin, 1996). Hopwood, Wright, Ansell, and Pincus (2013) provided a contemporary overview of developments in this paradigm. Notably, the interpersonal paradigm incorporates multimethod assessment and different classes of personality constructs. Leary (1957) delineated five levels of personality accompanied by specific assessment methods, all organized within the IPC framework. The multivariate paradigm traces from the traditions of the lexical hypothesis (Cattell, 1943), the Big Five (Goldberg, 1993), and the FFM (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Its exemplar method is multivariate analysis (e.g., factor analysis). Wiggins (2003) construed the empirical paradigm in a specific way. This does not refer to the use of empirical methods, as all personality paradigms are amenable to empirical approaches. Rather, Wiggins (2003) defined the empirical paradigm as organized around classical Kraepelian psychiatric diagnostic constructs. The paradigm is not restricted to diagnostic categories, although these are how they are classically organized. The exemplar assessment instrument is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (2nd ed. [MMPI–2]; Hathaway et al., 1989), which was originally developed to assess Kraepelian diagnostic categories through the empirical-criterion keying method of test construction. Wiggins (2003) noted, however, that other assessment instruments, including empirical Rorschach indexes of diagnostic constructs (e.g., Depression Index of the CS; Exner et al., 2008), represent assessment within the empirical paradigm.