Clinical Utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Method: Reframing the Debate

 

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).

Source: Clinical Utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Method: Reframing the Debate: Journal of Personality Assessment: Vol 77, No 1 (tandfonline.com)