The Rorschach technique applied to the evaluation of educable mentally retarded secondary school age students

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content THE RORSCHACH TECHNIQUE APPLIED TO THE EVALUATION OF EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED SECONDARY SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS by Douglas Keith Pryor A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL U IVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) June 1976 Copyright by Douglas Keith Pryor, 1976 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by ........... Douglas.Keith. Pryor··········--········-····-·····--· under the direction of h.~-~···· Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirenients of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY .. Ald.li&✓-+~~ .. -~.)i<:·· ~~~~'¥··Dean Date ... Q, ✓ .:.r/ .. 7-£. ................. . DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ---- 1- I TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Chapter I. THE PROBLEM • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II. III. Introduction Purpose Hypotheses Operational Definitions Scope and Delimitations Overview REVIEW OF LITERATURE Animal Content Human Responses Hun1an Movem nt Form Whole Response Form Level Conclusion • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • METHODOLOGY • • • • • 9 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Hypotheses Design Subjects Instrumentation Statistical Analysis Limitations Chapter Summary Page lV 1 13 24 .. 11 Chapter IV. V. INDINGS • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • Discussion SUMMARY AND RECOMMRNDATIONS Summary Recommendation ... • • • • • • • • • Page 29 36 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 42 ... lll Table 1. 2. 3. LIST OF TABLES ANOVA Main Effects: Race By Status • • • • • • • • • • Summary of Data Analysis for Human Movement (M) . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . ummary of Data Analysis for Organizational Level (Z), Animal Content (A), Whole Responses (W), Form Level (F), and Human Responses (H) .•.............. • • • • Page 30 32 33 lV CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Psychometric testing for diagnostic evaluation has been assailed in recent years from both within and without the ps ychologi - cal profession. From outside the profession many of the complaints concerning diagnostic testing are based on moral grounds for violating the basic human rights of liberty and privacy (Gross, 1962). From within the profess ion charges are levied on grounds of unreliability and invalidity (Zubin, Eron, & Schumer, 1965; Golden, 1964; Little & Schneidman, 1959; Meehl, 1959). Buss (1966) has stated that the two traditional roles and purposes of psychological evaluation are personality descriptioil and diagnosis. He further noted that diagnosis appears to be the less defensible of the two. In making this judgment he used the medical model of diagnosis, which has three purposes: (1) determination of the etiology of the disease or problem, (2) prog nosis, and (3) treatment. Cole and Magnus sen ( 1966) reached 1 similar conclusions, stating that psychometric testing has failed in diagnosis to serve any of these purposes well. Use of individual intelligence tests for diagnosis, evaluation, and placement of students in classes for the educable mentally retarded has specifically been criticized because of (1) the lack of minorities in the samples (Terman & Merrill, 1960), (2) the errone ous assumption that the rate of intellectual development as expressed by an IQ is relatively constant (Garrison & Force, 1965; Speer, 1940), and (3J the basic theoretical framework of what constitutes the construct of intelligence (Anastasi, 1964; Guilford, 1956). In California this controversy culminated in a preliminary injunction by the U. S. District Court on December 13, 197 4, restraining the use of individual intelligence tests for placement and admission of children in Educable Mentally Retarded classes (Brinegar, 1975 ). Given the combined situation in which (1) students are to be identified as educable mentally retarded and placed in special education classes, and (2) standardized intelligence tests are not to be used, how shall this evaluation be carried out? What criteria shall be used? In order to answer these questions it is necessary to under stand that mental retardation is defined as sub-average intelligence which originates during the development of the child and is associated with impairment in one or more of the following: (1) maturation, (2) learning, and (3) social adjustment (Heber, 1959; Begab, 1963: 2 Kirk, 1972). The discontinuance of the use of intelligence tests creates a void, although one which might possibly be filled through other diagnostic methods of personality description. The remainder of this chapter is subdivided into six sections. The first, or the problem, identifies the nature of the dissertation, while the discussion of the purpose relates the need and importance of this study. The hypotheses are then conceptualized and provide the questions to be answered. The terms are operation ally defined to facilitate comprehension of the literature review and methodology subsequently presented. The scope and delineation provide focus for the study, and the last section outlines the remainder of the study. Purpose The general purpose of this research was to provide a means by which educable mentally retarded students might be identified so they might receive educational placement more suited to their needs. More importantly, it was hoped that these data would provide accurate assessment of a student's academic and intellectual potential, ruling out erroneous ident·fication of educable mental retardation and subsequent erroneous placement in special classes. As early as 1945, Sarason and Sarason suggested that the personality organization of the educable mentally retarded should be 3 ,I / / carefully evaluated through such projective techniques as the Rorschach Inkblots or the Thematic Apperception Test. Allen (1975) also suggested that the Rorschach technique be used in evaluation of educable mentally retarded students. The Rorschach Inkblot Technique, introduced in 1922 by Hermann Rorschach, a Swiss psychoanalyst, has been investigated extensively to determine its validity as a diagnostic tool as applied to psychoanalytic theory. The Rorschach technique received very favorable reviews upon its introduction into the United States (Buros, 1938, B308). The technique continued to receive extensive studies and positive reviews through 1956 (Buros, 1965). Since that time the Rorschach reviews have declined both in number and positiveness (Buros, 1965). According to Aronow and Reznikoff (1973) the Rorschach currently represents only about 10 percent of the reviews in the Mental Measurement Yearbook. This decline of Rorschach reviews coincides with the general disfavor into which projective techniques have failed (Buros, 1970; Hertz, 1970; Thelen, Varble, & Johnson, 1968). Cronbach (in Murstein, 1965) expresses great concern for the statistical procedures used and their analysis and makes recommendations for statistical analysis based on well designed studies. As Goldfried, Stricker, and Weiner (1971) stated, the question of validity should not be "Is the Rorschach valid?" but "For what is the Rorschach valid?" The Rorschach, while basically a 4 psychoanalytic tool, has recently been seen as sensitive to develop mental changes in children (Ames, Learned, Metraux, & Walker, 1952; Ames, Metraux, Rodell, & Walker, 1974). Such use of the Rorschach Inkblots was the basis for the present study and precludes extensive review of the literature concerned with the Rorschach as a psychoanalytic tool. A review of pertinent literature reveals that the greatest amount of work on the Rorschach in the developmental field has been the establishment of norms (Ford, 1946; Ames, Learned, Metraux, & Walker, 1952; Hertz, 196 ). Ames (197 4) stated that projective techniques, if correctly administered and interpreted, can provide information on a child's level of development, innate individuality, and level of adjubt ment to the current life situation. Further review of the literature centered on examining validity studies of the Rorschach in light of developmental trends, as well as studies supporting the rationale for using the particular determinants identified in the various hypotheses to be tested. The specific purpose of this study was to provide data demonstrating the validity of the Rorschach Inkblots for describing the personality and intellectual functioning of students suspected of sub-average general intelligence. The research question concerned the relationship of general intellectual functioning to the perception of ambiguous visual stimuli in average and educable mentally retarded students. 5 Hypotheses The general hypothesis was that educable mentally retarded students would demonstrate less general ability in dealing with the unstructured blots than would average students, i.e., educable mentally retarded students' perceptions of the Rorschrch Inkblots would more closely resemble the perceptions of average students of younger mental age than of students of comparable chronological age. Specific hypotheses were: 1. Educable mentally retarded (EMR) students emit significantly fewer responses to the ten blots than average students. 2. EMR students verbalize significantly fewer human movement responses than average students. 3. EMR students demonstrate lower organizational abilities than average students. 4. EMR responses contain a significantly greater number of animal responses than average students' responses. 5. EMR students' responses are significantly less detailed than average students' responses. 6. EMR students relate to the form of the blot as the primary focus significantly more often than average students. 6 7. EMR students report fewer human responses than average students. The dependent variables were the scores or ratings achieved on the Rorschach Inkblots. Independent variables included grade, race, and status (EMR or average student). Operational Definitions Educable mentally retarded (EMR). - -Those students currently enrolled in special education classes due to developmental and/ or intellectual lag. Sample of normal students (SO S). - -Those students not enrolled in any special education classes and whose IQ lay within+ one standard deviation, i.e., between 85 and 115. The following Rorschach scoring symbols are from Klopfer and Davidson ( 1962) except as otherwise noted. Responses (R). --This was the total number of responses to the ten inkblots. Human movement (M). - -This was used in scoring any response which involved human or human-like movement, action, posture, or expression. Such a classification occurred if the action was attributable to human figures, caricatures, statues, or animals. Human responses (H). --Scored when an S identified a human figure as the subject of the response. 7 Whole response (W). - -Scored when the subject used the entire blot for the concept. The "W" location score represented a synthesis of the systems or Friedman (1952, 1953) and Rapaport, Gill, and Schafer (1946). 1. W+. --A synthesized response. Unitary or discrete portions of the blot were perceptually articulated and integrated or combined into a single percept. 2. Wo. - -Ordinary responses. A discrete area of the blot was selected and articulated so as to emphasize the gross out line and obvious structural features of the area selected. 3. Wv. --Vague responses. A diffuse or general impres sion was offered to the blot or blot area in a manner which avoided the necessity of articulation of specific outlines or structural features. 4. W-. --Arbitrary responses. Articulation of the blot or blot area was inconsistent with the structural limitations of the blot. Animal responses (A). - -·Scored when the subject identified an animal as the subject of the response. Animal parts (Ad). --Scored when a part of an animal was identified by the subject. A%. - -Was the ration of A -t- Ad responses to the total number of responses to the ten blots. ____ 8 F%. - -Was the ratio of pure Form responses to the total number of responses to the ten inkblots. Form responses (F). --This was used to score responses in which the shape or contour of the blot determined the concept employed by the subject and where there were no other determinants used. Form level. --A numerical score ranging from ·-2. 00 to +5. 00 based on the accuracy, specification, and organization of the response. The general procedure involved assigning a basal rating either plus or minus. Increments of 0. 5 were added for good speci - fication and/ or organization and subtracted for inaccurate specifica tion and/or poor organization which weakened the concept. 1. Accuracy. - -The fit or match of the concept to the blot in shape, form, or outline. The three levels of accuracy included a. accurate responses- -those responses which fit the area of the blot; b. semi-definite or indefinite- -those responses or concepts which were variable or vague in shape; and c. inaccurate responses - -those responses of definite shape but did not fit the shape of the blot or area of the blot. 9 2. Specification. - -Applied to how a subject elaborated or described what was seen. Three levels of specification ranged from responses which improved the concept to those which weakened or destroyed the concept. a. constructi.ve- -elaborations which improved the concept through the addition of detail, shading, or movement. b. irrelevant- -those additions which neither improved nor weakenE-u the concept. c. destructive- -those additions which violated the form level of the concept. 3. Organization. - -The manner in which the subject tied together various parts of the blot into a meaningful larger concept. 4. Basal rating. - -Seven basal ratings could be raised or lowered in increments of 0. 5 depending upon accurate or inaccurate elaborations and/or organiza tion. The basal rates were 1.5, 1.00, 0.5, 0.0, -1.00, -1.50, and -2.00. a. basal 1. 00- -the key rating and responses received this rating if the concept was definite and fit the blot. There were no elaborations. 10 b. basal 1. 50- -assigned to any concept which was more elaborate or definite. c. basal 0. 5- -assigned to semi-definite or vague concepts which did contain some form. d. basal 0. 0--used where there was an absence of form. e. basal -1. 00- -given if the subject attempted to show how the concept fit the blot, but failed to meet minimum accuracy requirements. f. basal -1. 50--given to concepts which fit one part of the blot, but were assigned to the total area of the blot without regard to the discrepancies. g. basal -2. 00- -given when the response implied a definite concept, but the form qualities did not fit the area of the blot chosen. Scope and Delimitations This study was delimited to tenth-grade male EMR students as compared with matched average students. Generalizability was similarly restricted to the ethnic origins of Black, Caucasian, and Mexican-American. 11 Overview The remainder of the dissertation consists of Chapter II, review of literature, which provides a background of the Rorschach Inkblots followed by a review of pertinent literature for each variable or sign used in the study. Chapter II is devoted to explication of the research design, research hypothesis and sub-hypotheses, selection of the subjects, procedures of data collection, and statistical methods used for evaluation. Chapter IV addresses itself to the analysis and evaluation of the data collected. Also included in this chapter was the interpre tation of these findings in relationship to the hypotheses proposed. The final chapter includes a summary of the findings, conclusions drawn, and recommendations for practical use of these data. Additional research is suggested as well. 12 , CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter provides a brief overview of the developmental research dealing with the Rorschach, as well as a discussion of some of the research pertaining specifically with the areas of concern of this study. Devised by Hermann Rorschach, a Swiss psycho analyst, the Rorschach Inkblots have been used historically as a psychoanalytic tool. Most of the research with the Inkblots have involved psychiatric patients and have concerned the evaluation of psychoanalytic theory. However, over the past thirty years a few studies have investigated use of the Rorschach Inkblots as a develop mental instrument using non-psychiatric subjects. Some studies of this nature have been longitudinal largely through use of small samples (Hertzman & Margulies, 1943; Rabin & Beck, 1950; Thetford, Molish, & Beck, 1951). In a five-year longitudinal study of forty-one male subjects Offer and Offer (1975) found that as the students grew older they became more productive, more able to delay gratification and to plan. 13 Additionally, the complexity of their thought patterns increasedo The authors stated in conclusion that the inkblots described development from early childhood through young adulthood as an increase in intellectual energy, firm integration of the intellect and of emotional life, growth in internally represented experiences and subsumption to the extended culture with concomitant reduction of passive reactions to others. Schimek (197 4) administered the Rorschach to a group of twenty-seven subjects at the ages of fourteen and twenty-four. The results indicated a decrease in primary process responses and a significant correlation with IQ (p <. 05). In a longitudinal study involved with retesting children at ages ten and one-half, thirteen and one-half, and sixteen and one-half, Kagan (1960) found a signifi cant stability coefficient (p < . 05) in the total number of responses and in the total number of quality human movement responses. Hertz and Baker (1942, 1943, 1943a) also reported some consistency in males at the ages of twelve and fifteen years. Other studies have been of a normative nature, providing "typical" responses for various age groups (Ledwith, 1959). The most complete developmental tables have been provided by Ames, Learned, Metraux, and Walker (1952) and Ames, Metraux, and Walker (1971). These have shown trends in Rorschach responses in children from ages two to eighteen. These studies indicate that as 14 a "normal" child develops physically, emotionally, and mentally the responses change from "gross" simplifications of the blots to better integrated responses, drawing upon the child's view of the world. The present study was concerned with the evaluation of several specific areas of Rorschach responses as emitted by normal and educable mentally retarded students. The following review of the pertinent literature of these areas provides a rationale for this investigation using these particular areas. Animal Content Animal content responses of parts of animals, and their ratio to the total number of responses (A%) constitute the largest single class of responses (Beck, Rabin, Theisen, Molish, & Thetford, 1950; Cass & McReynolds, 1951; Brockway, Gieser, & Utlett, 1954; Neff & Glasser, 1954; Wedemeyer, 1954). The means and/or medians for such responses in these studies fell between 38 percent and 40 percent. Beck, Beck, Levitt, and Molish (1961) reported an A ratio of about 45 percent in adults and slightly higher in children. Ames, et al. (1952) and Ames, Metraux, and Walker (1971) found about 50 percent of the responses from children were A and Ad (animal parts) with the percentages only slightly lower for adolescents. I<lopfer, Ainsworth, I<lopfer, and Holt (1954) reported somewhat lower A% ranging from 25 percent to 38 percent. They 15 agreed with Beck (1945) that excessive animal content responses in adolescents reflect intellectual limitations or emotional disturbance. Draguns, Haley, and Phillips (1967) stated that the A% provides information about a person's current place on the axis from autism to stereotypy. More specifically, a low representation of this content variable might appear both in instances of pathologically lowered ego control and of adaptive regression. They indicated further that an exclusion or prominent reliance on A is a character istic shared by constricted normal and impoverished psychotic patients. In a positive sense, Draguns, et al. (1967) reported that high scores in this category bespeak the ability to react in a predict able and appropriate fashion to the routine aspects of the environment. On the negative side, high A% might be expected to go with resistance to change and a potential for confusion and disruption in the case of variations in one's environment. Persons with low scores in A on the other hand, whether they are autistic, creative, or eccentric appear to share the trait of looking at the world in a somewhat different personal and unusual way. These considerations are in accord with those suggested by several Rorschach experts who view this measure principally as an index of stereotypy (Beck, 1950; I<lopfer, A ins worth, Klopfer, & Holt; 1954; Piotrowski, 1957; Bohm, 1958). More broadly, it appears that the relevance to pathology and intelligence is indirect and its immediate value is that of an indication of a stylistic outlook 16 toward the world toward which regulates the utilization of available intellectual resources and shapes the choice of one's defense mechanism (Draguns, et al. , 1967). Human Responses Draguns, et al. (1967), agree that the principal meaning of human res pons es (H) appears to be an index of social maturation. They are also in agreement that H varies directly with ontogenesis, cognitive development, and maturity in one's present or potential social relations . They state that high loading of A goes together with low H and vice versa, which suggests that H scorers are character ized by some traits found lacking in people pr8dominantly relying upon A; i.e., an ability to go beyond the trite and to participate actively in the necessarily ambiguous world of social interaction. Mayman (1967) stated that a person who fails to see human beings in the inkblots may be too unimaginative, unint lligent, or too super ficial or reserved to permit involvement with people. In a pilot study the seven best psychiatric residents and the seven worst psychiatric residents in the Menninger Foundation Selection Project were administered the Rorschach Inkblots. The poorest residents either saw very few human beings or expressed clearly an implicit cynicism or bitterness or fearfulness or alienation from the people they described (Holt & Luborsky, 1958). 17 Human Movement A healthy addition to the H response is M (human movement). Rorschach (1942) asserted that human movement responses are produced most prolifically by individuals who "function more in the intellectual sphere (p. 63)." He saw a direct relationship between the number of M responses and the individual's capacity for inhibition of motor activity, delay, and imaginative tendencies. From this there have been many studies which indicate that M has a direct positive relationship to intellectual operations (Paulsen, 1941; Lotsoff, 1953; Williams & La~Nrence, 1954; Abrams, 1955; Consalvi & Centu, 1957; Altus, 1958; Ogdon & Allee, 1959). Schulman (1953) reported that M is positively re lated with abstract thinking. He has demon - strated that the activity involved in both fu 1 "'tions requires some delaying intellectual operations. Levine, Spivack, and Wright (1959) have also demonstrated that M and the higher levels of intellectual operations require delaying activities. Ames (1971) reported that the frequency of M is very low in the young child and that a steady in crease in M frequency occurs to about age ten. In a study by Nickerson ( 1969) the results substantiated the conclusions drawn by Levine, et al. (1959) in their survey of seventeen studies correlating the M response with intelligence. In this study they concluded that there is a direct correlation between M and IQ across a variety of groups. Brain injured subjects have also been found to give few M 18 responses (Piotrowski, 1937, 1940; Evans & Marmoston, 1964)0 Form Responses to the blot based only on the outline or form (F) has been demonstrated to be invers ly related to high intellectual ability. Tarkington and Reed (1969) corroborated this relationship in evaluating psychotic and non-psychotic Ss. They found significance (p <. 01) for high F% in the non-psychiatric group, verifying the hypothesis of "natural limitation" suggested by Klopfer, Ainsworth, I<lopfer, and Holt (1954) in describing low intellectual abilities in subjects. Wittenborn and Mettler (1951) found that a decrease in F% corresponded to clinical improvement among psychiatric patients. Conversely, Janoff (1951) stated that children who used little or no definite form tended to be impulsive with poor reality testing. In a study using the Rorschach Inkblots coupled with galvanic skin response (GSR) Brockman (1970) determined that high GSR responses coupled with high F% were indicative of intellectual control. Whole Response The response of subjects using the entire blot (W) has had a long-standing reputation for bearing a relation to intelligence. Rorschach (1921) noted that the protocols of intelligent Ss were characterized by the presence of a large number of W responses. 19 Rapaport, Gill, and Schafer (1946) noted that the process of respond ing to the relatively unstructured Rorschach Inkblots brings to the fore the active organizing effort implicit in all perceptions where it interacts ( in a more or less integrated fashion, depending upon the individual) with associative processes stimulated by initial global perceptual impressions. Rapaport, et al. (1968), continued, stating that production of all W responses, except the most rudimentary or gross, require both abstraction and integration. Even among W responses of good quality, the nature of the interaction of perceptual and associative processes produces qualitative differences in the degree and precision of articulation and integration of the inkblot features. Friedman (1952) has reported that "normal" adults produce more W+ (high quality whole) responses than do schizo phrenics or children. Frank (1952) has shown the same to be true when normal and neuroti Ss are compared. Elkind, l<oegler, and Go (1964) have indicated that young children usually react to an entire stimulus rather than to its separate parts. This is particularly true of unfamiliar stimuli. Blutt and Allison (1963) reported a highly significant positive correlation betweei1 the higher developmental quality Ws and problem-solving abilities, while Ames, Metraux, and Walker (1971) indicate that the general quality of W responses tends to increase through mid-adolescence among "normal" subjects. In a report from the President of the Society for Projective Techniques and 20 Personality Assessment, Ames (1970) stated that if the W responses are not representative of more than the most primitive level, high intelligence is not suggested, no matter how high the W%- Friedman (1952, 1953) devised a scoring method for W with the purpose of assessing the developmental level of perceptual organization in Rorschach responses. His primary purpose was to test the hypothe sis that among adult schizophrenics, perceptual regression occurs to the extent that their percepts resemble those of young children (Friedman, 1952; Hemmendinger, 1960). His hypothesis was borne out by these studies as well as by a study by Goldfried (1962), which also indicated a high positive significance (p <. 01). Marsden (1970) in a study using Friedman's classification also reported congruent data. Exner (197 4) stated that when the location scores, including the W answers, are studied with regard to developmental quality, the findings become much more cons is tent, and definitive relation ships are found with different kinds of intellectual operations. Similarly, Ames and Walker (19641 in reviewing first and fifth grade longitudinal Rorschachs, were able to distinguish later good readers from later poor readers. Later good readers gave better quality W, lower W%, and higher[%, more introversive responses, lower F%, and a higher F+% which exceeded the F%. Even when IQ was held constant, these differences persisted. 21 Form Level The form level quality of the responses to blots has been seen as an important variable in identifying differences between subjects functioning high and low intellectually. Beck (1930, 1932) demonstrated a relatively high correlation between low F+% (form quality) a·nd limited intellectual endowment. More recently Sloan (1947) and Klopfer and I<elly (1942) have reached similar conclusions. There have been many other studies which have demonstrated that integratively complex Rorschach responses are associated with high levels of psychological development, a personality characteristic that is not conducive to primary process thinking (Friedman, 1953; Hemmendinger, 1953; Siegel, 1953; Lane, 1955; Becker, 1956; Phillips, Kaden, & Waldman, 1959; Schimek, 1974). Conclusion In conclusion, the data presented reveal that excesses in A and F responses, poor form level quality, poor quality of whole responses, and few human and human movement responses are indicative of poor intellectual ability and endowment. In light of these findings, this study hoped to evaluate and incorporate these areas in an effort to identify the educable mentally retarded student. The following chapter describes the method used to test the 22 appropriateness and ability of the Rorschach Inkblots in identifying this population. 23 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter outlines the proposed method of this study, including the statistical measures that were used to evaluate the data. This study was causative-comparative in nature comprised of two randomly selected samples taken from two different previously identified populations; specifically those students who had been identified as educable mentally retarded and were in special educa tion classes, and those students who were not in special education classes. Hypotheses The general hypothesis of this study is that educable mentally retarded students respond at a lower intellectual level to the relatively unstructured Rorschach Inkblots than normal students. To test this hypothesis, seven directional sub-hypotheses were devel oped. Statistically stated in null form these hypotheses were: 24 1. The total number of responses to the Rorschach Inkblots by the educable mentc. · , v retarded students (EMR) are equal to or greater than the total number of responses to the Inkblots of the average students (SONS). 2. Human movement responses given by the EMR students are equal to or greater than the number of human movement responses given by the SONS. 3. The organizational ability of the EMR students is equal to or greater than the organizational ability of the SONS. 4. The total number of animal content responses given by the EMR students is equal to or greater than the total number of animal content responses given by the SONS. 5. The quality of the whole responses given to the blots by the EMR students is equal to or greater than the quality of the whole responses given by the SONS. 6. The form level of the responses given by the EMR students is equal to or greater than the form level of the responses given by the SONS. 7. The number of human responses given by the EMR students is equal to or greater than the number of human responses given by the SONS. 25 Design There were two independent variables used: (1) status, average students (SONS), and educable mentally retarded students (E:tv1R); and (2) race, Black, Caucasian, and Mexican-American. The dependent variables were the total number of responses (R), the total number of human movement responses (M), the organizational level (Z), the total number of quality whole responses (W), the total number of human responses (H), the ratio of pure form responses to the total number of responses (F%), and the ratio of animal and animal parts responses to the total number of responses (A%). Subjects The EMR subjects for this study were fifteen male students randomly drawn from a population of identified educable mentally retarded students currently enrolled in special education classes. They were in the tenth grade or had birthdates between December, 1959, and December, 1960. The sample of fifteen was chosen to include five students from each of three ethnic groups: Black, Caucasian, and Mexi~an American. The fifteen ONS were average students randomly assigned from pools matched with the EMR students on race, age, and sex. Average students were defined as functioning intellectually within + - 26 one standard deviation of the mean as measured by the WISC-R or the Stanford-Binet, as tested by the author. Instrumentation Each S was administered the Rorschach Inkblots using standard instructions (Klopfer & Davidson, 1962). The responses were written verbatim and scored as described earlier. All scores were then verified by an expert as to the correctness and appropri - ateness. Statistical Analysis The responses of the two samples were evaluated through use of ANOVA. Overall significance was determined by evaluation of the total number of responses (R) of the EMR students compared with the total R of the SONS. The sub-hypotheses were a priori compari - sons and were evaluated by a one-tailed t-test. The level of significance was set at p < . 05. Limitations The major limitation of this study was the small sample size. Also there was the possibility that the samples were somewhat biased since ,they were drawn from only two Southern California school districts. The subjects were all male which also precludes general- izability to female students. 27 Chapter Summary This chapter describes the subjects of the study, the design, and the statistical procedures used to analyze the data collected. The hypothesis was stated with concomitant sub hypotheses operationally stated in null form. The limitations were noted relative to the samples used. 28 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The purpose of this chapter is to discuss and evaluate the data obtained which are presented by hypothesis, concluding with a summary state· ment. The general hypothesis is that educable mentally retarded students will demonstrate less general ability in dealing with the unstructured blots than will average students. The following is a brief discussion of the results of each sub-hypothesis proposed to test this general hypothesis. 1. The hypothesis that educable mentally retarded students emit significantly fewer responses to the ten Rorschach Inkblots than average students was evaluated through ANOV A to provide informa tion regarding differences between the two samples. The difference was significant (F = 11.541, df = 5, p <. 05) allowing rejection of the null hypothesis (see Table 1). 29 TABLE 1 ANOVA MAIN EFFECTS: RACE BY STATUS Source of Variance Sum of Squares Main effects 600. 800 Interactions 12. 800 Residuals 255. 198 Total 868.798 df 3 2 24 29 Mean Squares 200. 267 6.400 10. 633 29. 959 F 18.834 0.602 Significance of F 00.001 0.999 30 2. The hypothesis that educable mentally retarded students verbalize significantly fewer human movement responses to the ten inkblots than average students were evaluated by Mann-Whitney U due to zero responses by all of the educable mentally retarded sample. The results were significant (U = 0, p <. 05) providing for rejection of the null hypothesis (see Table 2). 3. The hypothesis that educable mentally retarded students demonstrate lower organizational abilities than average stud nts were tested through the t -test. The average students achieved high r organizational scor s (Z) with a mean of 3. 5267. The mean of the educable mentally retarded sample was 2. 3667. The diff rence was significant (t = 10. 11, df = 28, p <. 05) which allowed rej ction of the null hypothesis (see Table 3). 4. The hypothesis that educable mentally retarded students' res pons es contain a greater proportion of animal content than the average students responses were evaluated by the t-test. The mean of the educable mentally retarded sample was 50. 4667; the mean of the average students was 39. 3333. The 31 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS FOR HUMAN MOVEMENT (M) Mann Standard Whitney Variable Group Number of Cases Deviation U P Sons 15 M 9.09 0 LO. 05 EMR 15 7 32 Variable uJ uJ z A w F H TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL (Z), ANIMAL CONTENT (A), WHOLE RESPONSES (W), FORM LEVEL (F), AND HUMAN RESPONSES (H) Number Standard Standard Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error t-value SONS 15 3. 5267 0.071 0.018 10.11 EMR 15 2. 3667 0.713 0.184 SONS 15 39.3333 11.462 2. 960 2.90 EMR 15 50.4667 33. 256 8.587 SONS 15 3. 4867 0.083 0.022 5.77 EMR 15 2.2733 0.482 0.124 SONS 15 31.4000 10.575 2.730 2. 7 4 EMR 15 81.2000 29.052 7.501 SONS 15 3. 0667 1.163 0.300 1.27 EMR 15 0.4667 0.915 0.236 p < 0. 05 < 0. 05 < o. 05 < 0. 05 < 0.05 ~ difference was significant (t = 2. 90, df = 28, p <. 05) and allowed rejection of the null hypothesis (see Table 3). 5. The hypothesis that the educable mentally retarded students' responses are significantly less detailed than the average students' responses was evaluated by the t-test. The educable mentally retarded sample had a mean of 2. 2733; the average student sample's mean was 3. 4867. The difference was significant (t = 5. 77, df = 28, p < . 05) provtding rejection of the null hypothesis (see Table 3). 6. The hypothesis that the educable mentally retarded students relate to the form of the blot as the primary focus significantly more often than average students was evaluated by the t-test. The mean score of the educable mentally retarded sample was 81. 2000; the mean of the average students was 31. 4000. The difference is significant (t = 2. 7 4, df = 28 p < . 05) allowing for rejection of the null hypothesis (see Table 3). 7. The hypothesis that educable mentally retarded students report fewer human responses than average students was evaluated by the t-test. The mean of 34 the average students was 3. 0667 and the mean of the educable mentally retarded sample was 0. 4667. The difference was not significant (t = 1. 27, df = 28, p <. 05) disallowing rejection of the null hypothesis. Discussion The overall significance of less than 0. 05 suggests that the Rorschach Inkblots are useful in distinguishing educable mentally retarded students from average students. Animal content, form level, human movement responses, organizational level, and quality whole responses also significantly differentiate between the educable mentally retarded students and the average students (p <. 05). The H (Human Response) was ~ot significant (p = • 19) indicative of no difference between the number of human responses between educable mentally retarded students and average students. The literature suggests that the lack of human responses is indicative of poor mental health, poor interpersonal relationships, and schizo phrenia rather than retardation. The evaluation of the present data is somewhat congruent and suggests that lack of human responses is not a valid indicator of mental retardation. 35 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The impetus of this study was the recent injunction by the United States District Court on December 13, 197 4, restraining the use of individual intelligence tests for placement and admission of children in educable mentally retarded classes. This situation has made it imperative that alternative methods be evaluated regarding their effectiveness in identifying those students who are functioning intellectually belov.r average. This study proposed to evaluate possible differences in the manner in which educable mentally retarded students and average students differ in their approach and reaction to the unstructured Rorschach Inkblots. The literature concerned with using the Rorschach Inkblots as a developmental and educational tool is quite limited, mostly consisting of norming studies. The greatest nu1nber of articles have concerned evaluation of psychoanalytic theory using psychiatric populations as subjects. l 36 However, research has shown differences between adequately and inadequately functioning persons. Offer and Offer (1975) found that more mature Ss were more productive which are characterized by more complex thought patterns. Klopfer, et al. (1945), found that intellectual limitations or emotional disturbance are reflected in excessive animal content responses. Human responses has been seen to be an index of social maturation (Draguns, Haley, & Phillips, 1967). Mayman (1967) stated that a person who fails to see human beings in the inkblots may be to unimaginative, unintelligent, or too superficial or reserved to permit involvement with people. Human m vement has been reported to be directly related to intelligence (Paulsen, 1941; Lots off, 1953; Williams & Lawrence, 1954; Levine, Spivak, & Wight, 1959). Quality whole responses have also been seen directly related to high intellectual ability (Friedman, 1952; Ames, 1970; Exner, 197 4). Conversely, responses based solely on the outline or form of the inkblots has been seen to be inversely related to high intellectual processes and ability (Tarkington & Reed, 1969; I<lopfe1, Ainsworth, I<lopfer, & Holt, 1954). Based upon these data several hypotheses were proposed to test for differences between educable mentally retarded students and average students and an experimental design devised with which to test these hypotheses involving measurement of the total number of 37 responses, human movement responses, organizational level, and quality whole responses. These data were subjected to an overall ANOVA with t-tests for a priori comparisons and Mann-Whitney U to test for significance in M (human movement response) due to zero variance in the educable mentally retarded students' responses. Evaluation of these data al lows for the following conclusions: 1. Educable mentally retarded Ss emitted significantly fewer responses (p <. OS) than average students allowing rejection of the null hypothesis and is suggestive of immaturity and lack of intellectual ability. 2. Educable mentally retarded students verbalized significantly fewer human movement responses than average students (p <. 05) which is also indicative of lower intellectual capacity. 3. The educable mentally retarded students also demonstrated significantly lower organizational ability than the average students (p <. 05) which is congruent with the literature and suggests con - striction and adapti.ve regression. 4. Educable mentally retarded students responded more frequently with animal content than average students (p <. 05) suggesting intellectual limitation. 38 5. The educable mentally retarded students' responses were significantly less detailed than the average students (p <. 05) which suggested im maturity and low intellectual ability. 6. The educable mentally retarded students related primarily to the form of the blot significantly more often than the average student (p <. 05). This is suggestive of immaturity, poor intellectual operations, and resistance to change. 7. The educable mentally retarded students did not report significantly fewer human responses than the average students (p = . 19) disallowing rejection of the null hypothesis. This suggests that lack of human responses is not indicative of mental retardation. These data indicate that there is a significant difference in the manner in which educable mentally retarded students and average students respond to the Rorschach Inkblots. These data and their analyses, however, do not provide a numerical point below which a student would have to score to be classified as educable mentally retarded. Further, differences between the two groups are valid only for the total number of responses, animal contentresponses, form level, human movement responses, organizational level, and quality whole responses. -~~ 39 As seen in the literature, few responses, poorly organized and primarily based upon the form of the blots is indicative of faulty thought process, construction, and lack of imagination. Also lack of human movement, and greater animal responses given to the Rorschach Inkblots suggest poor intellectual operations, resistance to change, and adaptive regression. The data from this study demonstrate empirically that educable mentally retarded students responded to the Rorschach Inkblots in the predicted directions, thus suggesting faulty thought processes, constriction, poor intellectual operations, and resistance to change. Recommendations While these data suggest significant differences in the manner in which the educable mentally retarded students and the average students react to the Rorschach Inkblots, it is recommended that additional research be conducted to answer questions which have arisen as a result of this study: 1. Are there specific points below which a student may score which will identify educable mental retardation? 2. Are there specific patterns of responses for normal and educable mentally retarded students? 3. Are the Rorschach Inkblots capable of identifying educable mentally retarded students when compared 40 with students of dull normal intellectual endowment? 4. Are there other signs or approaches to the Rorschach Inkblots which will differentiate the educable mentally retarded student from the average student? 5. Would similar results be found in the evaluation of other age groups? In conclusion, while the results of this study are significant, they only provide impetus for further research in evaluating the effectiveness of the Rorschach Inkblots in identifying the educable mentally retarded student. 41 REFERENCE 42 Abrams, E. N. factors. REFERENCES Prediction of intelligence from certain Rorschach Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1955, 11, 81-83. Allen, R. M. There is an alternative to the IQ. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1975, 39(4), 377-380. Altus, W. D. Group Rorschach and Q-L discrepancies on the ACE. Psychological Reports, 1958, 4, 469. Ames, L. B. Projecting the future of a projective technique. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1970, 34(5), 359-365. Ames, L. B., Learned, J. L., Metraux, R. W., & Walker, R. N. Child Rorschach responses. New York: Haeber, 1952. Ames, L. B. , Metraux, R. W. , Rodell, J. L. , & Walker, R. N. Child Rorschach responses. New York: Brunner/ Mazel, 1974. Ames, L. B., Metraux, R., & Walker, R. N. Adolescent Rorschach responses. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1971. Ames, L. B., & Walker, R. N. Prediction of later reading ability from Kindergarten Rorschach and IQ scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 32, 327-330. Anastasi, A. Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan, 1964. Aronow, E. , & Reznikoff, M. Attitudes toward the Rorschach Test expressed in book reviews: A historical perspective. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1973, 37(4), 309-315. Beck, S. J. The Rorschach test and personality diagnosis: The feeble-minded. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1930, 10, 19-52. 43 Beck, S. J. The Rorschach test as applied to a feeble-minded group. Archives of Psychology, 1932, 84, 136. Beck, S. J. Rorschach' s test. II: 1\. variety of personality pictures. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1945. Beck, S. J. Rorschach's test I: Basic process. (2nd ed.) New York: Grune and Stratton, 1950. Beck, S. J., Beck, A., Levitt, E., & Molish, H. B. Rorschach' s test I: Basic process. (3rd ed. ) New York: Grune and Stratton, 1961. Beck, S. J., Rabin, A. I., Thiesen, W. C., Molish, H., & Thetford, W. N. The normal personality as projected in the Rorschach test. Journal of Psychology, 1950, 30, 241-298. Becker, W. C. A genetic approach to the interpretation and evaluation of the process-reactive distinction in schizo phrenia. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 229-23 • Begab, M. J. What is a retarded child? Together, 1963, 7(11), 29. Blatt, S. J. , & Allison, J. Methodological considerations in Rorschach research: The W response as an expression of abstractive and integrative strivings. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1963, 27, 269-278. Bohm, E. A textbook in Rorschach test diagnosis. New York: Grune and Stratton, 195 8. Brinegar, L. Memorandum. State of California, Department of Education, February 5, 1975. Brockway, A. L., Gleser, G. C., & Utl tt, G. A. Rorschach concepts of normality. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1954, 18, 259-265. Broekmann, N. C. A psychophysiological investigation of the Rorschach colour and form determinants. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1970, 34(2), 98-103. Buras, 0. K. (Ed.) Mental measurement yearbook. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1938. New Brunswick, 44 Buras, 0. K. (Ed.) Personality tests and reviews. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1965. Buss, A. H. Psychopathology. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1966. Cass, W., Jr. , & McReynolds, P. A contribution to Rorschach norms. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, 18, 178-1831 Cole, J., & Magnussen, M. Where the action is. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 30, 539-543. Consalvi, C., & Centu, A. Rorschach scores as a function of four factors. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 47-51. Draguns, J. G., Haley, E. M., & Phillips, L. Studies of Rorschach content: A r eview of the r esearch literature, part 1: Traditiona l content categorie s . Journal of Proj ective T echniques a nd Per s onality Assessment, 1967, 31(1), 3-32. Elkind, D., Koegler, R. R . , & Go, E. Studies in perceptual deve lopment: II part-whole perception. Child Development, 1964, 35, 81-90. Evans, R. B. , & Marmoston, J. in cerebral thrombos i . 977 -988. Rorschach signs of brain damage Perceptual Motor Skills, 1964, 18, Exner, J. E. The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1974. Ford, M. The application of the Rorschach test to young children. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1946. Friedman, H. Perceptual regression in schizophrenia: A hypothesis suggested by use of the Rorschach test. Journa 1 of General Psychology, 1952, ~, 63-98. Friedman, H. Perceptual regression in schizophrenia: A hypothesis suggested by use of the Rorschach test. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1953, .!.Z_, 171-185. Garrison, K. C., & Force, D. G. The Psychology of Exceptional Children. New York: The Ronald Press, 1965. 45 Golden, N. Some effects of combining psychological tests on clinical inferences. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 440-446. Goldfried, M. R. Some normative data on Rorschach developmental level "card pull" in a ps ychiatri~ population. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1962, 26, 283-287. Goldfried, M. R., Stricker, G., & Weiner, I. B. Rorschach handbook of clinical and research applications. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1971. Gross, M. L. The Brainwashers. New York: Random House, 1962. Guilford, J. P. 'The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 53, 267-293. Hays, W. L. Statistics. New York: I--Iolt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Heber, R. A. A manualon terminology and classification in mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 64, 368-382. Hemmendinger, L. Perceptual organization and development as reflected in the structure of the Rorschach test responses. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1953, Q, 162-170. Hemmindinger, L. Develop1.1ent theory and the Rorschach method. In M. A. Rickers-Oviankina (Ed.), Rorschach psychology. New York: Wiley, 1960. Hertz, M. R. Frequency tables for scoring Rorschach responses. Cleveland: Press of Case Western Reserve L 1 11iversity, 1961. Hertz, M. R. Projective techniques in eris is. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1970, 34, 449-467. Hertz, M. R .. , & Baker, E. Personality patterns in adolescence as portrayed by the Rorschach inkblot method: I. The movement factors. Journal of General Psychology, 1942, 27, 119-188. 46 Hertz, M. R., & Baker, E. Personality patterns in adolescence as portrayed by the Rorschach inkblot method: II. The color factors. Journal of General Psychology, 1943, 28: 3-61. Hertz, M. R., & Baker, E. Personality patterns in adolescence as portrayed by the Rorschach inkblot method: III. The "Erlebnistypus" (a normative study). Journal of General Psychology, 1943a, 28, 225-27 6. Hertzman, M., & Margulies, H. Developmental changes as reflected in Rorschach test responses. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1943, 62, 189-215. Holt, R. R., & Luborsky, L. Personality patterns of psychiatrists, II. Topeka, l(ansas: The Menninger Foundation, 1958. Janoff, I. Z. The relation between Rorschach form quality. Measures and children's behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1951. l(agan, J. The long-term stability of selected Rorschach responses. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 67-73. Kirk, S. A. Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. Klopfer, B., Ainsworth, M. D., I<lopfer, W. G., & Holt, R. R. Developments in the Rorschach technique, I: Technique and theory. Yonkers-on-the-Hudson: World Book, 1954. Klopfer, B., & Davidson, H. introductory manual. The Rorschach Technique: An New York: Harcourt Brace, 1962. Klopfer, B. , & Kelly, D. The Rorschach technique. Yonkers-on the-Hudson: World Book, 1942. Lane, J. E. Social effectiveness and developmental level. Journal of Personality, 1955, 23, 274-284. Ledwith, N. H. Rorschach responses of elementary school children. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1969. Levine, M., Spivak, G., & Wight, G. The inhibition process, Rorschach human · movement responses and intelligence: Some further data.. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959, 23, 306-313. 47 Little, K. B. , & Schneidman, E. Congruencies among interpre tations of the psychological test and anamnestic data. Psychological Monographs, 1959, 73 (6, Whole No. 476). Lots of, E. J. Intelligence, verbal fluency, and the Rorschach test. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1953, Q, 21-24. Marsden, G. Intelligence and the Rorschach whole response. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1970, 34(6), 470-4760 Ma yman, M. Object-representations and object-relationships in Rorschach responses. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1967, 31( 4), 17 -240 Meehl, P. E. Some rumi 11 .ations on the validation of clinical procedures. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1959, 13, 102-128. Murstein, B. (Ed.) Handbook of projective techniques. New York: Basic Books, 1965. Neff, W. S., & Glaser, N. M. Normative data on the Rorschach. Journal of Psychology, 1954, 37, 95-104. Nickerson, E. Some correlates of M. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1969, 33(3), 203- 212. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. , & Bent, D. H. Statistical package for the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Offer, D., & Offer, J. B. From teenage to young manhood. New York: Basic Books, 1975. Ogden, D. P., & Allee, R. Rorschach relationships with intelligence among fa1nilial mental defectiveso American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 63 889-896. Paulsen, A. Rorschachs of school beginnerso Rorschach Research Exchange, 1941, 5, 24-29. Phillips, L., I<aden, S., & Waldman, M. Rorschach indices of developmental level. Journal of General Psychology, 1959, 94, 267 -285. 48 Piotrowski, Z. The Rorschach inkblot method in organic disturb- 7 ances of the central nervous system. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 1937, 86, 525-537. Piotrowski, Z. Positive and negative Rorschach organic reactions. Rorschach Research Exchange, 1940, 4, 147-151. Piotrowski, Z. A., Perceptanalysis. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Rabin, I. E.,, & Beck, S. J. Genetic aspects of some Rorschach factors. American Journal of Orth ops ychiatr y, 1950, 20, 595-599. - Rapaport, D., Gill, M. , & Schafer, R. Diagnostic psychological testing, II. Chicago: Yearbook Publishers, 1946. Rorschach, H. Psychodiagnostics. Bern: Huber, 1942. Rorschach, H. Ps ychodiagnostics. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1964 (1921). Schimek, J. G. Some developmental aspects of primary process manifestations in the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 197 4, 38(3), 226-229. Schulman, I. The relationship between perceptions of movement on the Rorschach test and levels of conceptualization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1953. Siegel, E. L. Genetic parallels of perceptual structurization in paranoid schizophrenia: An analysis by means of the Rorschach technique. Journal of Projective Techni.ques, 1953, 17, 151-161. Sloan, W. Mental deficiency as a symptom of personality disturb ance. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1947, 52, 31-36. Speer, G. S. The mental development of children of feebleminded and normal mothers. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 1940, 39, 309-314., Tarkington, L. , & Reed, K. An evaluation of Rorschach indicators of psychos is with mentally retarded. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1969, 33(5), 474-475. 49 T'erman, Lo 1'1., & Merrill, M. Stanford-Binet intelligence scale: Manual for the third revision. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1960. Thelen, M. H., Varble, D. L., & Johnson, J. Attitudes of academic clinical psychologists toward projective techniques. American Psychologist, 1968, 23, 517-521. Thetford, W. N., Molish, H. B., & Beck, S. J. Developmental aspects of personality in normal children. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1951, 15, 58-78. Wedemeyer, B. Rorschach statistics on a group of 136 normal men. Journal of Psychology, 1954, 37, 51-58. Williams, H. L. , & Lawrence, J. F. Further investigation of Rorschach determinants subjected to factor analysis. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1954, ~' 193-197. Wittenborn, J. R., & Mettler, F. A. score for the Rorschach test. ogy, 1951, 7, 331-334. A lack of perceptual control Journal of Clinical Ps ychol - Zubin, Jo, Eron, L. D., & Schumer, F. An experimental approach to projective techniques. New York: Wiley, 1965. so

Asset Metadata

Creator Pryor, Douglas Keith (author)

Core Title The Rorschach technique applied to the evaluation of educable mentally retarded secondary school age students

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 1976-06

Publication Date 05/16/1976

Defense Date 05/16/1976

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Children with mental disabilities -- Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,Rorschach test

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC25327

Unique identifier UC25327

Identifier Ph.D. Ed '76 P973 (call number),etd-PryorDougl-1976.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-PryorDougl-1976

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Pryor, Douglas Keith

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230120-usctheses-microfilm-box5 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu