|
Phase |
|
Period |
|
|
1 |
1921- 1950s |
The unbridled optimism period |
This period was marked by widespread interest in the
RIM, aided in part by these seminal publications of Schafer (1954) |
|
2 |
1960s |
Increasing skepticism period |
widespread misuse of the test by clinicians
(typically involving biased, impressionistic interpretation. |
|
3 |
1974 onwards |
The psychometrization period |
Comprehensive System (CS) for RIM scoring and
interpretation (subsequently revised and refined in 1986, and again in 1993). With the publication of Exner’s CS, a single
overarching framework was adoptedby most (although not all) RIM users. The empirical foundation of the RIM was strengthened,
and the test achieved a degree of respectability that it had not enjoyed for
some time (see Meyer, 1999; Weiner, 1995, 2000a) |
|
4 |
1996 onwards |
Backlash period |
began with Wood, Nezworski, and Stejskal’s (1996)
critique of the RIM in general, and the CS in particular. Wood et al.’s challenge
led to Exner’s (1996) published response in Psychological Science, and several
interrelated dialogues ensued, with RIM proponents and critics exchanging
sharply opposing views (e.g., Hunsley & Bailey, 1999; Viglione, 1999). In the midst of these debates, two prominent
journals published point–counterpoint exchanges specifically devoted to the
RIM: the special series on “The Utility of the Rorschach for Clinical
Assessment” in Psychological Assessment (Meyer, 1999), and the special
section on “The Rorschach Test in Clinical Diagnosis” in the Journal of
Clinical Psychology (Garfield 1947/2000; Weiner, 2000b). |
