Editing Projective test (section)

==Validity==
Projective tests are criticized from the perspective of [[statistical validity]] and [[psychometrics]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Lilienfeld|first1=Scott O.|last2=Wood|first2=James M.|last3=Garb|first3=Howard N.|date=2000|title=The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/1529-1006.002|journal=Psychological Science in the Public Interest|language=en|volume=1|issue=2|pages=27–66|doi=10.1111/1529-1006.002|pmid=26151980|s2cid=8197201|issn=1529-1006|via=|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last1=Taylor|first1=Whitney D.|title=Human Figure Drawings|date=2015-01-23|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp141|encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology|pages=1–6|editor-last=Cautin|editor-first=Robin L.|place=Hoboken, NJ, USA|publisher=John Wiley & Sons, Inc.|language=en|doi=10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp141|isbn=978-1-118-62539-2|access-date=2021-02-13|last2=Lee|first2=Catherine M.|s2cid=142799554 |editor2-last=Lilienfeld|editor2-first=Scott O.|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Seitz|first=Jay A.|date=2001|title=A Cognitive-Perceptual Analysis of Projective Tests Used with Children|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pms.2001.93.2.505|journal=Perceptual and Motor Skills|language=en|volume=93|issue=2|pages=505–522|doi=10.2466/pms.2001.93.2.505|pmid=11769908|s2cid=19518853|issn=0031-5125|via=}}</ref> Most of the supporting studies on the validity of projective tests are poor or outdated.<ref name=":1" /> Proponents of projective tests claim there is a discrepancy between [[statistical validity]] and [[clinical validity]].<ref>[[Leopold Szondi]] (1960) ''Das zweite Buch: Lehrbuch der Experimentellen Triebdiagnostik''. Huber, Bern und Stuttgart, 2nd edition. Ch.27, From the Spanish translation, B)II ''Las condiciones estadisticas'', p.396. Quotation: {{blockquote|En esta crítica aparece siempre ''la conocida discrepancia entre la validez estadistica y clinica de todos los «tests» de psicologia profunda''}}</ref>

In the case of clinical use, they rely heavily on [[clinical judgment]], lack [[reliability (statistics)|statistical reliability]] and [[statistical validity]] and many have no standardized criteria to which results may be compared, however this is not always the case. These tests are used frequently, though the [[scientific evidence]] is sometimes debated. There have been many empirical studies based on projective tests (including the use of standardized norms and samples), particularly more established tests. The criticism of lack of scientific evidence to support them and their continued popularity has been referred to as the "projective paradox".<ref name = Cordon>{{cite book |author=Cordón, Luis A. |title=Popular psychology: an encyclopedia |publisher=Greenwood Press |location=Westport, Conn |year=2005 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/popularpsycholog0000cord/page/201 201–204] |isbn=978-0-313-32457-4 |url=https://archive.org/details/popularpsycholog0000cord/page/201 }}</ref>

Responding to the statistical criticism of his projective test, [[Leopold Szondi]] said that his test actually discovers "fate and existential possibilities hidden in the inherited familial unconscious and the [[personal unconscious]], even those hidden because never lived through or because have been rejected. Is any statistical method able to span, understand and integrate mathematically all these possibilities? I deny this categorically."<ref>Szondi (1960) ''Das zweite Buch: Lehrbuch der Experimentellen Triebdiagnostik''. Huber, Bern und Stuttgart, 2nd edition. Ch.27, From the Spanish translation, B)II ''Las condiciones estadisticas'', p.396</ref>

Other research, however, has established that projective tests measure things that responsive tests do not, though it is theoretically possible to combine the two, e.g., Spangler, 1992.<ref>Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 172, No.1, 140–154.</ref> Decades of works by advocates, e.g., David C. McClelland, David Winter, Abigail Stewart, and, more recently, Oliver Schultheiss, have shown clear validity for these tools for certain personality traits, most especially implicit motivation (as contrasted with self-attributed or "explicit" motivation, which are conscious states),<ref>McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger 1989</ref>{{Incomplete short citation|date=July 2022}} and that criticisms of projective tools based on techniques used for responsive tools is simply an inappropriate method of measurement. Moreover, Soley and Smith report that when used with larger Ns in research, as opposed to the clinical assessment of an individual, projective tests can exhibit high validity and reliability.<ref name=SoleySmith2008/>