Explicit rejection of an implicit dichotomy: integrating two approaches to assessing dependency.

Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA.
Journal of Personality Assessment (Impact Factor: 1.29). 02/2008; 90(1):26-35. DOI: 10.1080/00223890701468584
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The field of personality theory and assessment is characterized by a long-standing divide between proponents of self-report and indirect approaches to assessment. This article reviews the increasing convergence between the two sides, using recent writings on interpersonal dependency as an example domain. The assumptions of the self-report approach to personality assessment are contrasted with those of the indirect, and research using both types of assessments is reviewed. Also considered is the importance of recognizing dissociations between a particular individual's scores on self-report and indirect measures of a given component of self-concept, and the possible implications of such dissociations. It is argued that the convergence between two traditionally disparate approaches is likely to develop, in light of hypotheses, data and conclusions that bear notable similarity.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent conceptual and methodological innovations have led to new strategies for documenting the construct validity of test scores, including performance-based test scores. These strategies have the potential to generate more definitive evidence regarding the validity of scores derived from the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) and help resolve some long-standing controversies regarding the clinical utility of the Rorschach. After discussing the unique challenges in studying the Rorschach and why research in this area is important given current trends in scientific and applied psychology, I offer 3 overarching principles to maximize the construct validity of RIM scores, arguing that (a) the method that provides RIM validation measures plays a key role in generating outcome predictions; (b) RIM variables should be linked with findings from neighboring subfields; and (c) rigorous RIM score validation includes both process-focused and outcome-focused assessments. I describe a 4-step strategy for optimal RIM score derivation (formulating hypotheses, delineating process links, generating outcome predictions, and establishing limiting conditions); and a 4-component template for RIM score validation (establishing basic psychometrics, documenting outcome-focused validity, assessing process-focused validity, and integrating outcome- and process-focused validity data). The proposed framework not only has the potential to enhance the validity and utility of the RIM, but might ultimately enable the RIM to become a model of test score validation for 21st-century personality assessment.
    Journal of Personality Assessment 01/2012; 94(1):26-38. · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In many respects the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM) P and M Axes represent psychoanalytic versions of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) Axes II and V: Whereas the DSM axes focus on surface behaviors and their associated mental states (e.g., thought patterns, affective responses), the PDM axes emphasize underlying psychodynamic processes (e.g., implicit motives, conflicts, defenses), with more modest attention to expressed behavior. The paradigmatic shift envisioned by the PDM creates tremendous opportunities for clinicians and researchers, and significant assessment challenges as well. This article discusses those opportunities and challenges. After briefly contrasting the DSM and PDM conceptualizations of personality pathology and global psychological functioning, I discuss the implications of these contrasting perspectives for diagnosis and psychological assessment, outline strategies for documenting the construct validity of DSM and PDM symptom criteria using symptom-focused and process-focused methods, and offer suggestions for how DSM symptom-focused data can be integrated with PDM process-focused data to facilitate case conceptualization and treatment planning.
    Journal of Personality Assessment 03/2011; 93(2):142-50. · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In a 6-month longitudinal design, the authors examined the links between neediness and increases in depressive symptoms in women. Neediness was assessed with the self-report Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ), supplemented by a projective measure that assessed an important component of dependency, oral dependency, on the Rorschach. Results indicate that neediness correlated significantly with increases in depressive symptoms over the 6 months. Orality interacted with neediness to substantially increase the prediction of increases in depressive symptoms.
    Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 01/2014; 78(1):16-33. · 0.72 Impact Factor