Standardized Personality Intelligence Test: Holtzman Inkblot - Research Paper Example

Running head: HOLTZMAN INKBLOT Holtzman Inkblot Test (HIT): An Analysis and Assessment Abstract Developed in 1921, the Rorschach Inkblot Test was considered the test of choice in clinical psychology. Toward the mid-century, according to Exner (1993), it fell into disfavor as many clinicians began criticizing it as subject to the test giver’s personal biases and conclusions regarding its results. Beginning in the late 1950's psychologists began favoring the idea of compiling systems that had developed into cohesive tests representing a comprehensive system of the most up to date ideas. Wayne H. Holtzman’s 1950s studies took the basic concepts of Rorschach into the realm of modern inkblot projective techniques. Rorschach: Back from the Abyss When Rorschach died prematurely in 1922, he had barely begun to develop his ink blot tests—hence the criticism of the test as too administratively biased. In his original publication it was clear Rorschach himself understood their limitations in terms of personality assessment as a mere a "Form Interpretation Test,” and cautioned that his findings were preliminary and stressed the importance of much more experimentation" (Exner, 1993, p. 6). With no clear leader to carry on the work, at least four separate "systems" developed to administer, score, and interpret the test. But which was most reliable? According to Exner (1993), none. Beginning in the late 1950's several prominent psychologists joined in his effort to consolidate the systems into a cohesive usable whole. Exner's (1993) early work showed that each system "had considerable merit, but that each was also seriously flawed in one way or another" (p. viii). What resulted was the Comprehensive System—a project which for Exner evolved into the three-volume work still in use today to measure the value and empirical scientific worth of various standardized ink blot tests. It might be said that Exner rescued Rorschach from the ignominy of the scientific community. What resulted was the survival of one of the most lastingly regarded psychometric personality testing and evaluation instruments ever envisioned by the psychological community.   Holtzman Inkblot Test (HIT) Wayne H. Holtzman Published: 1961 General Description: “Among the prime problems of the Rorschach...are its variable number of responses from one subject to another, lack of standard procedures, and lack of alternative form. The HIT was created to meet these difficulties, while maintaining the advantages of the inkblot methodology” ( Kaplan et al citing Holtzman et al, 1961, p. 391). Unlike the Rorschach, the HIT is a standardized measurement with clearly defined objective scoring criteria. The HIT consists of 45 inkblots. The test administrator, or examiner, has a stack of 47 cards with inkblots (45 test cards and 2 practice cards) face down in front of him or her. The examiner hands each card to the subject and asks the test subject what he or she sees in the inkblot. Only one response per inkblot is requested. Occasionally, the examiner may ask the test subject to clarify or elaborate on a response. The Administration of the HIT typically takes 50–80 minutes. The HIT is then scored against 22 personality-related characteristics. The HIT can also be administered in a group setting. In group testing, 30–45 inkblots are projected onto a screen and test subjects provide written responses to each inkblot. Reynolds et al (2003) wrote that Holtzman in his quest for a more refined and useful Rorschach developed his HIT series of tests “...to overcome psychometric limitations in the Rorschach by constructing completely new sets of inkblots"(p. 198). Holtzman (1956), while formulating his own techniques, pointed out that much of the controversy over the Rorschach arose from the failure to distinguish between the Rorschach as a projective technique in the hands of a skilled clinician, and the Rorschach as a psychometric device that yields scores having relevance for personality assessment. The analysis of responses to inkblots has ranged all the way from one extreme to the other of the projective psychometric continuum. (p. 198) HIT Test Description/Content/Structure Purpose: The Holtzman Inkblot Test is designed as a multi-variable projective personality test. Holtzman used 100,000 inkblot responses from 2,000 individual protocols. Subjects in mental hospitals, schools for retarded children, colleges, colleges, elementary and secondary schools, and subjects obtained by door-to-door sampling of normal adults. (Holtzman, 1981, p. 25). Other aspects of the test gleaned from sources throughout the reference bibliography as cited include the following: A standard of norms for psychiatric patients, adults, children, and college students (Wood, et al, 2003, p. 187); Two parallel testing forms, A and B, each of which contains 45 inkblots constituting the test series and two practice blots, X and Y, that are identical in both forms. Thus, standardized responses can be obtained from a total of 92 different inkblots rather than just ten. Forty-five cards in each series requires only one response to each card, “holding more constant the number of responses given” (Rabin, 1968, p. 136); A test limit of twenty-two variables: reaction time, location, form definiteness form appropriateness, color, shading, movement, pathosonomic verbalization, integration, human, animal, anatomy, anxiety, hostility, barrier, penetration, popular, etc. Rabin (1968) found “stimuli are richer and more varied in color, form, and shading. The blots vary considerably in degree of symmetry or balance, providing a new stimulus dimension for analysis” (p. 136); An alternate series of the inkblot stimuli test (45) for reassessing the personality after some type of intervention. “Carefully matched, parallel forms of the HIT are available, permitting the use of test-retest designs and the study of change within the individual” (Rabin, 1968, p. 136). A measure of Deviant Verbalizations that can be used to help identify patients with schizophrenia (Wood et al, 2003, p. 187). Administration: Rabin (1968) provides the following detailed administration process: A Record Form and a Summary Sheet are available for the examiner to use in recording responses and scoring. Space is provided on the front page of the Record Form for the subject's name, age, sex, and other identifying data. To facilitate the recording of location, schematic diagrams for the inkblots are included. As each response is given, the examiner outlines the specific area used. Adjacent to the diagram is a blank space for recording the verbatim response or a shortened version of it. Scores for the 22 variables are recorded in the appropriate boxes on the Summary Sheet. Reaction Time is entered on the Record Form at the time of administration and transferred later to the Summary Sheet. Extra boxes are provided on the Summary Sheet to take care of any additional variables. After making appropriate introductions and establishing rapport, the examiner sits next to the subject where he can easily see the area of the inkblot used and can readily follow any elaboration given by the subject. The stack of 47 inkblots is placed in front of the examiner, face down in serial order with the first trial blot (X) on top. The number of the blot appears on the back of the card along with an A or B to identify form. The examiner picks up the cards one at a time, handing each one in upright position to the subject. The instructions given the subject should be informal and should stress the following points: 1) These inkblots were not made to look like anything in particular; 2) different people see different things in each inkblot; and 3) only one response for each card is desired. Although the exact wording used may vary from one type of subject to the next in order to avoid stiffness and maintain rapport, the above points should be emphasized in a standard manner. (p. 140). Scoring: Specific Scoring Criterion from Rabin (1968) lists the following: Reaction Time (RT) -- the time, in seconds, from presentation of the inkblot to the beginning of the primary response. Rejection (R) -- score 1 when the subject returns the inkblot to the examiner without giving a scorable response. Location (L) -- tendency to break down the inkblot into smaller fragments; score 0 for use of whole blot, 1 for use of a large area of the blot, 2 for use of smaller areas of the blot. Space (S) -- score 1 for response involving a figure-ground reversal where white space constitutes the figure and the inkblot is the ground. Form Definiteness (FD) -- a five-point scale ranging from a score of 0 for a concept having completely indefinite form ("squashed bug") to a score of 4 for highly specific form ("man on horse"). Form Appropriateness (FA) -- goodness of fit of the form of the concept to the form of the inkblot; score 0 for poor, 1 for fair, and 2 for good form. Color (C) -- importance of both chromatic and achromatic color as a determinant; score 0 when not used, 1 when used only in a secondary manner (as in the Rorschach FC), 2 when color is a primary determinant but some indefinite form is present or implied (as in the Rorschach CF), and 3 when color is primary and no form is present (as in the Rorschach C). Shading (Sh) -- importance of shading or texture as a determinant; Reaction Time (RT) -- the time, in seconds, from presentation of the inkblot to the beginning of the primary response. Rejection (R) -- score 1 when the subject returns the inkblot to the examiner without giving a scorable response. Location (L) -- tendency to break down the inkblot into smaller fragments; score 0 for use of whole blot, 1 for use of a large area of the blot, 2 for use of smaller areas of the blot. Space (S) -- score 1 for response involving a figure-ground reversal where white space constitutes the figure and the inkblot is the ground. Form Definiteness (FD) -- a five-point scale ranging from a score of 0 for a concept having completely indefinite form ("squashed bug") to a score of 4 for highly specific form ("man on horse"). Form Appropriateness (FA) -- goodness of fit of the form of the concept to the form of the inkblot; score 0 for poor, 1 for fair, and 2 for good form. Color (C) -- importance of both chromatic and achromatic color as a determinant; score 0 when not used, 1 when used only in a secondary manner (as in the Rorschach FC), 2 when color is a primary determinant but some indefinite form is present or implied (as in the Rorschach CF), and 3 when color is primary and no form is present (as in the Rorschach C). Shading (Sh) -- importance of shading or texture as a determinant; Popular (P) -- ">Score 1 if a popular response is given, popular responses being defined statistically for specific areas of the inkblots in earlier normative studies of the HIT. The total score for each of the 22 variables is obtained by summing across the 45 cards, using the Summary Sheet as a convenient form for this purpose. (pgs. 143-145) Additional Information on Scoring: The test is scored on 22 variables: reaction time, rejection. Location, space, form definiteness, form appropriateness, color, shading, movement, pathognomic verbalization, integration, content (human, animal, anatomy, sex, abstract), anxiety, hostility, barrier, penetration, balance, and popular. R in scoring formula was always forty-five and the “problem of R” disappeared, so that fluctuations in R couldn't cause other scores to rise or fall. (Wood et al, 2003, p. 187). Standardized percentile norms are provided for the 22 inkblot scores on a variety of populations, facilitating interpretation and analysis. Group methods of administration and computer scoring make it possible to use the HIT for rapid, large-scale screening as well as for individual diagnosis and assessment.(Rabin, 1968, p. 136). As a “Comprehensive System” assessment tool, Wood et al (2003) found “the test contains all the ‘good things’ including scales for Form Appropriateness (equivalent to Form Quality), Pathognomic Verbalization (a measure of Deviant Verbalizations), and Integration (closely related to Developmental Quality and Z scores)....Scores for Form Appropriateness and Pathognomic Verbalization can be combined into an index that appears to function much like the Comprehensive System Perceptual Thinking Index” (p. 278). Regarding the future of scoring HIT, Holtzman (1981) writes, “The advent of highspeed computer made it possible to compute extensive statistics bearing upon reliability, validity, and normative tables for interpretation...Special computer programs...devised for diagnostic purposes; group methods of administration... provide more cost-effective methods of personality assessment for many populations; and arrangements were made for final publication and distribution of the test materials by the Psychological Corporation ( p. 25). Reliability/Validity/Strengths and Weaknesses Extensive tables on scoring reliability and alternate-form reliability (Wood et al, 2003, p . 187-188). “Holtzman was firmly grounded in the American empirical tradition and reluctant to make unproven claims for his test's validity, Holtzman didn't claim, for example, that the HIT provided a complete picture of an individual's personality, or that it was an x-ray of the psyche. Instead, he adhered closely to the scientific evidence and was modest in his claims...” (Wood et al, 2003, p. 278) Wood et al (2003) further found an intrascorer consistency on three examiners after a period of about 3 months. Reliabilities average about .95 on 9 scores. Interscorer consistency is reported for a number of different scorers for various scores. The lowest reported score reliabilities are .57, the highest .99. Intrasubject reliabilities reported for 15 different groups on all 22 scores. These split-half reliabilities vary widely, but generally range between .50 and .90 with an approximate average in the .70s or .80s. No test-retest reliabilities were found which might furnish information about whether the scores are measuring persisting traits. (p. 278). Three main drawbacks were found by Wood et al (2003). “First, its norms, though excellent, are old and may need to be updated...further validation studies are needed...the blots, now marketed by the Psychological Corporation, are prohibitively expensive” (p. 278). Multicultural Application “HIT, like Rorschach, has proven useful in a number of different cultures from primitive original societies to highly industrialized societies.” (Dana, date, p. 393). Esquivel et al (2007) found that ambiguity of task stimuli and simplicity of instructions has made the HIT a favored test for those working with multicultural populations. Citing Dana, they write, “The HIT has been examined through many empirical investigations, particularly with regard to its clinical utility in assessing Hispanic cultures..the HIT is the preferred inkblot technique for assessing personality in Hispanic subjects as well as individuals from different cultural groups” (p. 296). According to Esquivel et al (2007) there are very specific reasons why the test can be used so successfully among a cross cultural population. Wood et al (2003) quotes psychologist Lawrence Fran. “The great virtue of projective tests... is that they bypass the problem of conformity by eliminating social pressure from the testing situation. When shown an inkblot... respondents have no preconceptions about how they're supposed to perform. Free from social expectations, they will reveal their own “private world” of personal meanings and feelings” (p. 151). HIT and its emphasis on modern projective techniques then is free from the restrictions of social norms that may or may not apply to the particular subject. It must be concluded then that its use as a multicultural personality assessment tool is not only valuable but produces results and assessments useful and appropriate. Emphasizing the point, Rabin (1968) provides a detailed example of how HIT was used successfully in the cross-cultural context in the following passage: One of the most extensive cross-cultural studies involving the HIT is the Austin-Mexico City project briefly described by Holtzman ( 1965a) in a theoretical analysis of cross-cultural research on personality development. Conducted in collaboration with Diaz-Guerrero and his associates, the project involves careful matching of Mexican and Texas samples on sex, age, father's education and occupation. A first report of cross-cultural findings on the HIT has been given by Swartz ( 1966). Protocols from 516 six-, nine-">, and 12-year-olds were analyzed for 17 HIT scores across sex, age, father's occupational level, and culture. Quite aside from a number of highly significant interactions involving culture and the other three major factors studied, the Mexican children obtained generally lower scores on most HIT variables. Taken together with the findings from other tests in the cross-cultural project, these results are highly consistent with Diaz-Guerrero's theory concerning the different sociocultural premises underlying Mexican and American personality development -- the Mexicans are more passive and resilient while the Americans are more active and direct in their style of coping with stress (p. 160-161). Conclusion As Holtzman et al (1956) point out, much of the controversy over the Rorschach arose from the failure to distinguish between the Rorschach as a projective technique in the hands of a skilled clinician, and the Rorschach as a psychometric device, that yields scores having relevance for personality assessment. The analysis of responses to inkblots has ranged all the way from one extreme to the other of the projective psychometric continuum. One thing all of the tests, including HIT incorporate as a modern personality assessment goal is to assess the “inner cry” of subjects. Modern techniques such as that employed by Wilfred A. Cassell in his Somatic Inkblot Series (SIS) uses video images instead of ink blots and has been praised by clinicians, including Holtzman. “In the hands of an experienced clinician... the Somatic Inkblot Series is a most welcome new projective technique for the assessment of personality and psychopathology” (Morgan quoting Holtzman, para. 1). References Dana, R.H. (2000) Handbook of cross-cultural and multicultural personality assessment. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Ehrlbaum Associates. (google.com) Esquivel, G.B., Lopez, E.C., Nahari, S.G. (2007) Multicultural handbook of school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Ehrlbaum Associates, Inc. Exner, J.E. (1993). The comprehensive system for Rorschach, Vol 1, Basic foundations (3rd ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Holtzman, W. H.. (1956). Inkblot perception and personality. Texas: University of Texas Press. Holtzman, W.H. (1981). Excerpt from: Inkblot perception and personality: Holtzman inkblot technique, Holtzman, W.H., Thorpe, J.S., Swartz, J.D. & Herron, E.W. (1961). Published in This Weeks Citation Classic (excerpt), No. 13, March 30, 1981. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1981/A1981LG20300001.pdf Kaplan, R.M, Saccusso, D.P. (2009). Psychological testing: Principles, applications and issues. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. (google.com) Morgan, R. Forward. Somatic Inkblot Series Center. http://www.somaticinkblots.com/SISIIVideoManual/Foreward/tabid/70/Default.a spx Rabin, A.I., (1968) Projective techniques in personality assessment: A modern introduction. New York: Springer Publishing. Reynolds, C.R., Kamphaus, R.W. (2003). Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Personality, behavior, and context. New York: Guilford Press. (google.com) Wood, J.M., Nezworski, M.T., Lilienfeld, S.O. & Garb, H.N. (2003). What's wrong with the Rorschach? Science confronts the controversial inkblot test. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Read More