Recent conceptual and methodological innovations have led to new strategies for documenting the construct validity of test scores, including performance-based test scores. These strategies have the potential to generate more definitive evidence regarding the validity of scores derived from the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) and help resolve some long-standing controversies regarding the clinical utility of the Rorschach. After discussing the unique challenges in studying the Rorschach and why research in this area is important given current trends in scientific and applied psychology, I offer 3 overarching principles to maximize the construct validity of RIM scores, arguing that (a) the method that provides RIM validation measures plays a key role in generating outcome predictions; (b) RIM variables should be linked with findings from neighboring subfields; and (c) rigorous RIM score validation includes both process-focused and outcome-focused assessments. I describe a 4-step strategy for optimal RIM score derivation (formulating hypotheses, delineating process links, generating outcome predictions, and establishing limiting conditions); and a 4-component template for RIM score validation (establishing basic psychometrics, documenting outcome-focused validity, assessing process-focused validity, and integrating outcome- and process-focused validity data). The proposed framework not only has the potential to enhance the validity and utility of the RIM, but might ultimately enable the RIM to become a model of test score validation for 21st-century personality assessment.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2013.
All research outputs
#9,436,373
of 32,056,643 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Personality Assessment
#234
of 908 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,047
of 288,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Personality Assessment
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,056,643 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 908 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
