I became extrememly frustrated yesterday as I was reading the Garb (1999) article. Essentially, the Rorschach sucks and any study claiming that it is an effective, valid assessment contains some sort of fatal flaw. The reason that I was so annoyed by these conclusions is because we have to learn how to administer and score the stupid thing next semester. As Garb (1999) points out it takes 2-3 hours to complete so one would hope (even expect) it to be useful. So if the available evidence says its not, then why are we still using it? Why is our department forcing us to learn an assessment that, according to Garb (1999), leads to a DECREASE in validity of judgements? With that said, however, after reading the Dawes et al. (1989) my guard was up everytime I read the words "clinical judgment". Garb (1999) says that "positive results have never been obtained for the Rorschach in studies on clnical judgement and incremental validity" and that "when judgments have been made by using statistical prediction rules, there is some evidence supporting the incremental validity" of certain Rorschach scales (pg. 315). So I wonder if more studies were conducted testing the usefulness of Rorschach scales based on statistics, would we find better results? I really hope so!
The Dawes et al. (1989) got me thinking about my experience last week administering an IQ test to an inpatient at Western State Hospital. Without getting into too many specifics since these blogs are open to the public, I was able to review the client's records before testing him and I must say I am definitely guilty of some of the extrememly dangerous biases related to clinical judgments. The chart indicated that the client had "flat affect", slurred speech, low intellectual functioning, among a host of other problems. We are instructed to record behavioral observations while administering the test that are supposed to be extrememly useful in making diagnoses after testing. Guess what most of my observations related to?--The information that I was previously given from his record. I pertained to information that confirmed by beliefs (such as making a notes in line with a low functioning individual) and didn't really take into account any disconfirming evidence that could question his diagnoses. I didn't even realize that iw as doing this either. I've pretty much questioned behavioral obserations since the beginning of the semester because they seem so subjective to me. I'd be interested to see how similar two observers behavioral ratings are for the same person. If theya re supposed to be so important in making inferences after performing assessments, shouldn't they be highly standardized and reliable just as the tests are? I liked Garb's (1999) comment that the ability of humans to observe does not necessarily mean we have the ability to accurately predict.
3 comments:
haha i was thinking the same thing as you--WHY do we need to learn the rorshach if it sucks??!!!
maybe it's a joke?
It's no joke. You'll be learning the Rorschach.
As for why--chalk it up to sociology. Things change slowly. When I first learned components of the Rorschach, I recognized it immediately. I had already trained myself to read tarot cards and palms. Same diff--even to the extent that you can sometimes find interesting information about a person.
Post a Comment