ealth like the Conner Parent Rating Scale (CPRS) were used in conjunction with the Rorschach test, 60 per cent of individuals who were deemed emotionally healthy according to the CPRS had pathological scores on the Schizophrenia Index indicated by their Rorschach test results. Studies producing similar results are not rare and other researchers have reported upwards of 75 per cent of normal individuals as being psychiatrically disturbed according to Rorschach tests.
Projective tests contrast with less ambiguous and more rigid measures of psychological assessment commonly known as objective tests. Objective tests rely on a subject self-reporting and then having their answers scored by a standardized procedure, as opposed to being directly analyzed, as in projective tests. An example of this kind of tool is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which determines if you’re an ESTJ (Extraversion, Sensing, Thinking, Judgment), an INFP (Introversion, Intuition, Feeling, Perception) or some mixture of those acronyms. Self-report measures are not without their problems, and a fundamental limitation is that their intent is often easy to discern and, thus, participants can fake their responses. This is one of the reasons why projective tests are often used in conjunction with objective tests in an effort to cross-validate the assessment, because with projective tests, self-censorship is more difficult.
Although this article focused on the negative aspects and questioned the validity of psychological assessment tools like the Rorschach, there are a lot of studies published which demonstrate their worth as a diagnostic tool for clinicians. While the controversy rages on, it’s important to ground the significance of these tests in their real world applications; both clinical and legal decisions including mental health determinations and custody battles hinge sometimes on how well a person is drawn, or whether an inkblot is seen as a butterfly or a penis.