Editing Projective test (section)

===Rorschach===
{{Main|Rorschach test}}
The best known and most frequently used projective test is the Rorschach inkblot test. This test was originally developed in 1921 to diagnose schizophrenia.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hertz|first=Marguerite R.|date=September 1986|title=Rorschachbound: A 50-Year Memoir|journal=Journal of Personality Assessment|volume=50|issue=3|pages=396–416|doi=10.1207/s15327752jpa5003_9|pmid=16367435|issn=0022-3891}}</ref> Subjects are shown a series of ten irregular but symmetrical inkblots, and asked to explain what they see.<ref name = Cordon/> The subject's responses are then analyzed in various ways, noting not only what was said, but the time taken to respond, which aspect of the drawing was focused on, and how individual responses compared to other responses for the same drawing. It is important that the Rorschach test and other projective tests be conducted by experienced professionals to ensure validity and consistency of results.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Verma|first1=S. K.|title=Some Popular Misconceptions about Inkblot Techniques.|journal=[[Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health]]|date=2000|volume=7|issue=1|pages=71–3 |id={{ProQuest|222319580}}}}</ref> The Rorschach was commonly scored using the [[Rorschach test#Exner scoring system|Comprehensive System (CS)]], until the development of the newer scoring system, the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) in 2011.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Meyer|first1=Gregory J.|last2=Eblin|first2=Joshua J.|date=June 2012|title=An Overview of the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS)|journal=Psychological Injury and Law|volume=5|issue=2|pages=107–121|doi=10.1007/s12207-012-9130-y|s2cid=143393022|issn=1938-971X}}</ref> In an influential review, the Rorschach Inkblot Test using the CS method has been labeled as a "problematic instrument" in terms of its psychometric properties.<ref name=":2" />

The new scoring system has stronger psychometric properties than the CS, and, like the CS, allows for a standardized administration of the test<ref name=":0" /> which is something that is lacking in a majority of projective measures. Additional psychometric strengths present with the R-PAS include updated normative data. The norms from the CS were updated to also include protocols from 15 other countries, resulting in updated international norms. The CS international norm data set was based on fewer countries, most of which were European only. The new international norms provide a better representation of the Western hemisphere and westernized countries.<ref name=":0" /> Concerning differences in administration of the task across both scoring systems, a critical issue with CS administration was addressed in the development of the R-PAS. Following CS administration procedure, it was common to obtain too few or too many responses per card which could result in an invalidated protocol (due to too few responses) or in error.<ref name=":0" /> The new administration procedure introduced in the R-PAS requires the clinician to initially tell the examinee that they should provide two or three responses per card, and allows the clinician to prompt for additional responses if too few are given, or to pull cards away if too many are given.<ref name=":0" /> Therefore, the new administration procedure addresses the critical issue of number of responses that was prevalent with use of the CS administration procedure. The CS administration procedure prevented clinicians from prompting for more responses or pulling cards when too many responses were provided. An additional psychometric improvement concerns the presentation of obtained scores. With the R-PAS system, it is now possible to change scores to percentiles and convert percentiles to standard scores which can be presented visually and allow for easy comparison to the normative data.<ref name=":0" /> With the CS, this was not possible and it was more difficult to compare results to normative comparison groups. Lastly, the R-PAS scores have been shown to possess similar and sometimes stronger inter-rater reliability than was seen in scores from the CS.<ref name=":0" /> This means that when different clinicians score the same protocol, they are quite likely to derive the same interpretations and scores.