Content uploaded by Carl B. Gacono
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carl B. Gacono on Dec 02, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Carl B. Gacono, PhD, ABAP, Maverick Psychology Training and Consultation PLLC, Asheville, NC, drcarl14@aol.com; and Jason M.
Smith, PsyD, ABPP, jmsmithpsyd@gmail.com
Key Words: Rorschach, Comprehensive System-Revised, R-PAS, Exner
Rorschach Fact or Fiction: A Commentary on the R-PAS and CS/CS-R
Carl B. Gacono & Jason M. Smith
The use of psychological instruments prior to them being fully validated is never justified. The consequences can be serious in
terms of psychometric credibility. The push to utilize a new Rorschach scoring system, the Rorschach Performance Assessment
System (R-PAS; Meyer, Viglione, Mihura, Erard, and Erdberg, 2011), is worth examining from this perspective. Is its use
scientifically justified, or, even necessary? We informally polled several colleagues regarding frequently asked questions when
comparing the CS/CS-R and the R-PAS (Gacono and Smith, 2021a). This article explores practitioners’ responses to 10 of those
questions.
Introduction:
The use of psychological instruments prior to them being fully validated is never justified. The consequences
for both practice and research can be serious. For example, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised
(PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) is a self-report measure normed primarily on college populations. It has
only low to moderate correlations with the PCL-R (only Factor 2). Yet, after its introduction it was used almost
immediately in studies as an independent measure for forming ―psychopathy‖ groups, when it should have
continued as a dependent measure related to assessing its validity. This impacted research results, created
confusion in the psychopathy literature, and eventually, the PPI-R found its way into applied usage with some
forensic cases where it was misused for ―diagnosing‖ and/or making inferences about psychopathy (a
problematic leap; Gacono, 2016).
Scrutiny is needed before clinicians apply what they read in journals or what is offered by test developers. Bias
does exist in journal editors and reviewers. They tend to be employed in academia and/or influenced by
academic research where their conceptual knowledge may stem from a few recent studies (rather than a
historically established line of theory). Many studies are also informed by a perspective that lacks Step 1 of the
scientific method (direct observation or relevant exposure [active applied work] to the population studied;
Cunliffe, Gacono, and Smith, 2021). This glaring omission can create a partial understanding of conceptual
issues. Note a statement from the website of the late PPI-R developer:
Please note that (despite my interests in psychopathic personality) I do not accept graduate students whose
principal interests lie in criminal justice, criminology, or psychology-law given that the focus on our lab is on
basic personality/psychopathology research rather than on applied criminal justice or forensic work.
Nevertheless, students with secondary interests in these applied areas are certainly more than welcome to apply.
(psychology.emory.edu/home/ people/faculty/Lilienfeld-scott.html., retrieved August 6, 2020; our emphasis
added).
Once in print, findings from poorly designed studies are interpreted as valid and inform future studies.
Consequently, theoretical offerings from these sources can represent a seemingly plausible house of cards that
rests on a foundation of bias and flawed methodology.
This partial conceptual understanding also translates to how instruments are discussed and used.
Counterintuitive findings from these conceptually limited studies create apparent controversies where none
exist (Gacono, 2019, 2021) and have contributed to what Bob Hare has termed an ―armchair‖ quality to the
literature. Unchallenged, the obvious is often ignored. How can one offer opinions about psychopathy without
having spent enough time working with actual psychopaths? How can one offer opinions about the Rorschach
without having utilized the instrument enough times in an applied context?
SIS J. Proj. Psy. & Ment. Health (2023) 30: 1, 04 - 10
A push to utilize the new Rorschach scoring system, the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS;
Meyer, Viglione, Mihura, Erard, and Erdberg, 2011), is worth examining from this same perspective. Is its use
scientifically justified, or, even necessary? We informally polled several colleagues and received questions
from LinkedIn members regarding comparative issues with the CS/CS-R and R-PAS (Gacono and Smith,
2021a). A few key references were also provided to serve as guides for more in-depth analysis. Many of these
articles can be found on our Research Gate or LinkedIn pages.
1) Has the Comprehensive System ―been frozen in time‖ and by inference in need of replacement?
Answer: NO. It is alive, well, and evolving. Andrea Priddy (Director of Rorschach Workshops and
John Exner’s daughter) in partnership with the International Rorschach Institute (IRI) will be
providing the Comprehensive System-Revised in 2022 (CS-R; Fontan & Andronikof, 2022). This has
been discussed in recent videos
1
by the IRI (2022). An erratum is also offered here—Gacono has never
thought that the CS was frozen in time (Kivisto, Gacono, & Medoff, 2013).
2) Is altering the CS administration procedures, in any significant way, desirable or warranted? Answer:
NO. A large body of social science research establishes the impact of such things as instructions,
response style and so forth on test performance (Gacono & Smith, 2021b). This is a critical issue
related to both test construction and admissibility. The Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel
(2013) meta-analyses excluded studies that deviated from standard CS procedures. Yet, this issue is
ignored when attempting to justify the validity of the R-PAS based on CS studies.
What did Rorschach say about administration procedures? He stated, ―An attempt is made to get at
least one answer to every plate, thought suggestion in any form is, of course, avoided.‖ (1921/1942; p.
16). Compare this to the R-PAS instructions, ―Try to give two responses ... or maybe three, to each
card. That is, for each card try to see two different things; possibly three‖ (Meyer et al., 2011, p. 8)
The CS-R procedures are consistent with Rorschach’s intentions/cautions, the R-PAS procedures
are not. R-PAS instructions are not based on any sound conceptual premise but rather on a statistical
based choice to control R (Gacono & Smith, 2021b, 2022).
Pure and simple, the alteration in administration procedures has created a ―new‖ test which differs
from Rorschach’s intent (the CS/CS-R instructions follow Rorschach’s intent; Tibon-Czopp & Weiner,
2016). The R-PAS requires validation with protocols administered with these new instructions
(Gacono & Smith, 2021a). Statistically manipulated CS administered protocols used to develop
comparative data for a new system are not sufficient. This is not to say that some inferences from the
CS are not appropriate.
3) Is it desirable to control Responses (R) beyond what CS or CS-R guidelines already do? Answer: NO.
Variations in R are useful clinically and in research (Gacono & Gacono, 2008; Young, Erdberg, &
Justice, 2008). R can elevate or constrict related to the personality of the individual. In certain
populations (some sex offender groups [Gacono, Meloy, & Bridges, 2000, 2008]) internal press can
result in elevated R. Decreased R can result from characterological constriction. Even a 13 response
protocol may be interpretively useful (Gacono, 1997; Gacono & Gacono, 2008; Gacono & Meloy,
1994, p. 5;). While a one-to-one interpretation of the constellation cut-off score may be questionable,
the data may otherwise be accurate and adequate for describing the individual and contributing to the
personality formulation (Gacono & Smith, 2021b, 2022). Envision a rich 13 response protocol, with 8
DRs, a Lambda less than .50, 4 reflections, an elevated WSum6, etc., when compared to a 20 response
protocol with a Lambda over 2.00. In either case, the frequency of R should be interpreted not
controlled (Tibon-Czopp & Weiner, 2016).
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eFF-kf0Ejg& https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2gTntCIQ7I
Rorschach Fact or Fiction: 05
Most importantly is a study by one of the R-PAS originators (Young, Erdberg, & Justice, 2008) that
compared Lambda, X-% and WSum6 between psychiatric inmates with < 14 and > 13 protocols.
These variables were not significantly different (these were the only variables statistically compared).
A comparison of the group data also suggests that many other essential variables would not be
significantly different (i.e., M means, 2.61, 2.79; EA means, 4.86, 4.57). While the rate for low R
protocols (even after re-administration) was fairly high (38 out of 240) here is what Young et al.
(2008, p. 419) stated,
… at least for this group of psychiatrically hospitalized inmates, Rorschach records with R < 14 can be
useful for clinical interpretation, a finding also suggested by Gacono and Gacono … It is also
noteworthy that inmates with low response Rorschach records were significantly more likely to
demonstrate low intellectual functioning (p = .001) and impaired executive functioning (p =.01).
The reduced R, as in so many cases, in this study is an accurate reflection of the patient’s personality
functioning (Gacono & Gacono, 2008).
Meyer (1992) has written about controlling R for over 30 years. His arguments are based on a
statistical approach to the Rorschach without a conceptual acknowledgement or research established
validation of the actual pros and cons when the test is used in actual assessment (clinically relevant).
This line of reasoning does not include careful consideration for what is interpretively lost in sequence
analysis and interpreting the variation in R.
4) Is controlling R beyond the CS-R instructions necessary? Answer: NO. When experienced clinicians
establish rapport and administer the test as part of a battery the rate of low R protocols (R < 14) or
having to re-administer the test is less than 4% (Gacono & Meloy, 1994, p. 5). Gacono recalls only 2
protocols that required re-administration during three decades of adult Rorschach administration. Dr.
Barton Evan’s shared, ―In 20 years of forensic child custody evaluations, I cannot remember the need
to re-administer the CS because of R< 13‖ (Personal Communication, March 4, 2022).
In a study of re-administration in 3 samples (clinical, forensic, & students) looking for R< 14 on the
first administration, the rate of < 14 was found to be less than 5% (Exner, Fontan, & Andronikof,
2022). High percentages of R< 14 protocols can occur in certain samples administered by skilled
clinicians, but when these do, the low R coincides with the personality functioning of the subjects
(Gacono & Gacono, 2008; Young et al., 2008).
Quoting a 10% rate creates a straw person fallacy where one does not exist (Cunliffe et al., 2021;
Gacono & Smith, 2021a, 2021b, 2022). A 10% “rejection rate” is not factual.
5) Do the validity findings from the CS/CS-R translate directly to the R-PAS? Answer: Unknown, likely
some do, some do not. Further study is warranted. What we do know is that the CS/CS-R has been
utilized in many clinical and nonclinical populations and found to accurately represent the patients or
nonpatients evaluated. This cannot be confirmed for the R-PAS (Gacono & Smith, 2021a).
6) Does the main Mihura et al. (2013) meta-analyses used to support the R-PAS justify its conclusions?
Answer: NO. See Smith et al. (2018) and Smith, Gacono, Fontan, Cunliffe, and Andronikof (2020) for
an in-depth analysis of the problems with these meta-analyses. Of additional concern is that when
Smith et al. requested that the data from the study be offered for several Rorschach examiners to
review and subject our own analysis, we were told thatdatawere no longer available in ―their original
format.‖One must consider that this reference to unavailable data is one of the primary sources used to
support R-PAS validity.
7) Are all the variables eliminated based on the meta-analyses’ desirable? Answer: NO. Consider that
the CS-R determinants, variables, etc. have a robust conceptual basis. Some of these may be produced
infrequently in non-clinical populations; however, this does not negate their usefulness in certain
06: Gacono & Smith
clinical groups. For example, the Hx content was eliminated from the R-PAS based on their analysis of
non-patient protocols (statistically manipulated CS protocols). Yet we found this to be a signature
coding with female psychopaths in supporting the presence of their malignant hysterical style (Smith,
Gacono, & Cunliffe, 2021). Using a statistical chopping block with non-clinical protocols (as opposed
to a wide range of clinical and non-clinical protocols) for eliminating Rorschach variables is neither
valid science nor does it create a better Rorschach system.
8) Are there adequate normative, clinical, or forensic R-PAS administered samples to justify its usage?
Answer: NO. The R-PAS has been available for 11 years and still does not have R-PAS normative
data. It relies on statistical manipulated CS data for its normative sample. R-PAS newsletters for years
have asked for help in collecting normative data in the USA and other countries, but no data have been
presented as of Spring 2022. The R-PAS manual reports a mixed adolescent and adult forensic sample
of 45 persons. The only substantial R-PAS forensic norms with actual R-PAS administration were
presented in Erard, Singer, and Viglione (2017) with 376 child custody litigants from several US
states. Compare this to the over 4000 nonpatient, clinical, and forensic protocols available with the
CS/CS-R.
9) Were the developers of the R-PAS and/or the Rorschach Council anointed or endorsed by John Exner?
Answer: NO. In fact, quite the contrary. John Exner’s daughter and CEO of Rorschach Workshops,
Andrea Priddy, stated:
In 2006 [John Exner] had planned on discontinuing his Rorschach Research Council … he
felt it was less productive than he wanted …he was frustrated with the Council and he said
more often than not were interested in their own projects rather than furthering the
Comprehensive System and the tasks at hand that he had presented to them … upon his death
he didn’t make any arrangements to continue the Council … he did not feel that would be a
productive move‖ (IRI, 2022).
10) Is the R-PAS admissible in court? Answer: NO. Review the above as well as McCann and Evans
(2008). The R-PAS lacks sufficient comparative data, the meta-analyses are not adequate for its
conclusions nor are the data from it still available in its ―original format.‖ The R-PAS lacks the
longitudinal test-retest reliability that has been determined with the CS for certain variables and
determinants (EB, Y, etc.). These speak to its ―validity.‖ Additionally, as noted by McCann and Evans
(2008)
2
:
The presence of a standard method in administering, scoring, and interpreting data for a psychometric
instrument is one of the main criteria that has been set forth in the professional guidelines for forensic use of
psychological tests …The most widely used system is Exner’s Comprehensive System … Moreover, there are
clinical norms available for a variety of diagnostic groups as well as nonpatient adults, adolescents, and
children (p. 63).
The need for administration procedures to be linked directly to comparative data and validity studies are the key
issues. Additionally, the R-PAS is not widely ―accepted‖ by Rorschach users. In fact, as contrasted with the CS
Rorschach that was challenged primarily by a group of individuals who did not use the test, did not conduct
original research with the instrument, and were not assessment experts, critics of the R-PAS have been
uniformly Rorschach experts (Gacono & Smith, 2021a; CSIRA) whose criticisms of the system remain
unaddressed.
2
See McCann and Evans (2008) Admissibility of the Rorschach for a detailed analysis of these issues. Also see The Handbook of Forensic
Rorschach Assessment Section I (Scientific and Legal Foundations) as a guide to understanding these issues (Gacono & Evans, 2008).
Rorschach Fact or Fiction: 07
One final issue involves the question of the extent to which each system over or under assesses
psychopathology (Tibon-Czopp & Weiner, 2016). While an in-depth discussion of this issue is beyond the
scope of this commentary, the following provides a context.
1) It is proven that the CS Rorschach, when interpreted properly, accurately describes an individual’s
personality functioning. Additionally, in many cases the CS-R now offers an examiner the option
to compare the examinee’s data with their corresponding national norms (e.g., an Algerian citizen
can be compared to Algerian norms). This cannot be said for the R-PAS.
2) Reasonable discussion about this issue cannot be couched within a ―sign‖ approach to Rorschach
interpretation. For example, believing Fr equals psychopathy or an X-% score equals
schizophrenia is, at best, naïve. It is akin to suggesting that one would diagnose schizophrenia
based solely on a MMPI elevated Scale 8. Attempting to reduce the Rorschach yield in this
manner (sign approach), as opposed to interpreting the test by comparing patterns of variables
within an individual protocol have been vigorously challenged since the test’s inceptions (Gacono
& Meloy, 1994; Gacono & Smith, 2021b, 2022; Lindner, 1946).
Once adequate R-PAS comparative data are obtained (with R-PAS administered procedures) a more fruitful line
of research is to determine what is lost and what is gained with the newer system. In this commentary we have
provided one specific example (Hx) of what is lost when variables are cut on a statistical chopping block using
non-clinical protocols, and mentioned other areas, such as sequence analysis and R as a dependent measure
(where variations need interpretation, not control), for which the impact has yet to be fully assessed. Examiners
know what they have with the CS and the CS-R (see Piotrowski, 1996). The CS and CS-R are proven, useful,
and admissible in court, not in need of replacement. Until the R-PAS has adequate comparative data generated
with its administration procedures and additional validity research with R-PAS administered protocols the same
cannot be said for this version of the Rorschach. Despite the claims of several of the R-PAS proponents, the R-
PAS does not meet the criteria for admissibility in court and can be easily challenged.
The Rorschach has survived the Wood et al. era where true criticisms have been addressed and false ones
debunked (Gacono & Evans, 2008; Khadivi & Evans, 2012; Piotrowski, 2015), to find itself facing the
challenges outlined in this commentary. Likely it will survive this new challenge. Ultimately solid research will
determine the answer to questions that arise. However, truly the buyer must beware and in no other times than
the present have Exner’s ominous words----―a huge number of published investigations … are clearly marked
by errors in design, implementation, and/or analysis‖ (1995, p. 3)—been more relevant. The issues with the R-
PAS have not been addressed to date and is not fully validated. As always, we encourage Rorschachers to read
the original sources, review the facts, and analyze the data. In this regard, consultation is offered through
maverickpsychology.com to aid in sorting out and examining these issues.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Drs. Ted Cunliffe, Barton Evans, Chris Mulchay and several anonymous
members of our LinkedIn sites for their helpful comments.
Disclosure statement: While Jason Smith is part of a company (IRI) that sells CS-R manuals, CHESSSS-2®,
and associated products, most importantly, Carl Gacono is not.
References:
Cunliffe, T. B., Gacono, C. B., Meloy, J. R., Smith, J. M., Taylor, E. E., & Landry, D. (2012). Psychopathy and the Rorschach: A response
to Wood et al. (2010). Archives of Assessment Psychology, 2(1), 1–31.
Cunliffe, T. B., Gacono, C. B., & Smith, J. M. (2021). Understanding bias in diagnosing, assessing, and treating female offenders. In J. M.
Smith, C. B. Gacono, and T. B. Cunliffe (Authors), Understanding Female Offenders: Psychopathy, Criminal Behavior,
Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 33–112). Academic Press.
08: Gacono & Smith
Erard, R. E., Singer, J. S., & Viglione, D. J. (2017). The Rorschach in multimethod custody evaluations. In R. E. Erard & F. B. Evans
(Eds.), The Rorschach in multimethod forensic assessment: Conceptual foundations and practical applications (pp. 210–241).
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Exner, J. E. (1995). Introduction. In J. E. Exner (Ed.), Issues and methods in Rorschach research (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Exner, J.E., Fontan, P., & Andronikof, A. (2022). Rorschach: The Comprehensive System-Revised, Interpretation & Technical Manual.
Fort Mill, SC: Rorschach Workshops.
Fontan, P., & Andronikof, A. (2022, July). Introduction to the Rorschach Comprehensive System Revised (CS-R) and CHESSSS 2®.
Workshop given at the XXIII Congress of the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods, Genova,
Switzerland.
Gacono, C. B. (1997). Borderline personality organization, psychopathology, and sexual homicide: The case of Brinkley. Contemporary
Rorschach interpretation, 217-238.
Gacono, C. B. (Ed.). (2016). The clinical and forensicassessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Gacono, C. B. (2019). The importance of Lambda to the generalizability of Rorschach findings reported in the literature. SIS Journal of
Projective Psychology and Mental Health, 26(2), 104-106.
Gacono, C. B. (2021). Introduction. In J. M. Smith, C. B. Gacono, and T. B. Cunliffe (Authors). Understanding Female Offenders:
Psychopathy, Criminal Behavior, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 1–32). Academic Press.
Gacono, C. B., & Evans, F. B. (Eds.). (2008). The LEA series in personality and clinical psychology. The handbook of forensic Rorschach
assessment (N. Kaser-Boyd & L. A. Gacono, Collaborators). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Gacono, C.B., & Meloy, J.R. (1994). The Rorschach assessment of aggressive and psychopathic personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gacono, C. B., Meloy, J. R., & Bridges, M. R. (2000). A Rorschach comparison of psychopaths, sexual homicide perpetrators, and
nonviolent pedophiles: Where angels fear to tread. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 757–777.
Gacono, C. B., Meloy, J. R., & Bridges, M. R. (2008). A Rorschach understanding of psychopaths, sexual homicide perpetrators, and
nonviolent pedophiles. In C. Gacono, B. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L. Gacono (Eds.), The Handbook of Forensic Rorschach
Assessment (pp. 379–402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gacono, C.B., & Smith, J.M. (2021a). Essential issues to consider prior to using the R-PAS in a forensic context. SIS Journal of Projective
Psychology & Mental Health, 28(1), 4-13.
Gacono, C.B., & Smith, J.M. (2021b). Some comments on the importance of comparative group data for interpreting Rorschach findings.
SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 28(2), 67-73.
Gacono, C.B., & Smith, J.M. (2022). Some comments on the idiographic interpretation of Rorschach findings. SIS Journal of Projective
Psychology & Mental Health, 29(1), 4-14.
Gacono, L.A., & Gacono, C.B. (2008). Some considerations for the Rorschach assessment of forensic psychiatric outpatients. In C.B.
Gacono, F.B. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L.A. Gacono (Eds.), The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. 421-444).
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
International Rorschach Institute (IRI). (2022). International Rorschach Institute YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com /
channel/UCNkM1J9lo9bohJn7NVNFSxA
Khadivi, A., & Evans, F. B. (2012). The brave new world of forensic Rorschach assessment: Comments on the Rorschach special section.
Psychological Injury and Law, 5(2), 145-149.
Kivisto, A. J., Gacono, C., & Medoff, D. (2013). Does the R-PAS meet standards for forensic use? Considerations with introducing a new
Rorschach coding system. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(5), 389–410.
Lindner, R.M. (1946). Content analysis in Rorschach work.Rorschach Research Exchange, 10, 121-129.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic personality inventory-revised: Professionalmanual. Lutz, Florida: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
McCann, J. T., & Evans, F. B. (2008). Admissibility of the Rorschach. In C. B. Gacono, F. B. Evans (Eds.) & N. Kaser-Boyd, L. A. Gacono
(Collaborators), The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. 55–78). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Meyer, G. J. (1992). Response frequency problems in the Rorschach: Clinical and research implications with suggestions for the future.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(2), 231–244.
Rorschach Fact or Fiction: 09
Meyer, G. J., Viglione, D. J., Mihura, J. L, Erard, R. E., & Erdberg, P. (2011). Rorschach Performance Assessment System: Administration,
coding, interpretation, and technical manual. Toledo, OH: Rorschach Performance Assessment System, LLC.
Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel, G. (2013). The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of the comprehensive system. PsychologicalBulletin, 139, 548–605.
Piotrowski, C. (2015). Projective techniques usage worldwide: A review of applied settings 1995-2015. Journal of the Indian Academy of
Applied Psychology, 41(3), 9-19.
Piotrowski, C. (1996). The status of Exner’s comprehensive system in contemporary research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 1341-1342.
Rorschach, H. (1942). Psychodiagnostics. Berne, Switzerland: Hans. (Original work published 1921)
Smith, J.M., Gacono, C.B., & Cunliffe, T.B. (2021). Understanding Female Offenders: Psychopathy, Criminal Behavior, Assessment, and
Treatment. Elsevier.
Smith, J. M., Gacono, C. B., & Fontan, P., Cunliffe, T. B., &Andronikof, A. (2020). Understanding Rorschach research: Using the Mihura
(2019) commentary as a reference. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 27(2), 71–82.
Smith, J. M., Gacono, C. B., Fontan, P., Taylor, E. E., Cunliffe, T. B., & Andronikof, A. (2018). Ascientific critique of Rorschach research:
Revisiting Exner’s Issues and Methods in RorschachResearch (1995). Rorschachiana, 39, 180–203.
Tibon-Czopp, S., & Weiner, I. B. (2016). Rorschach assessment of adolescents: Theory, research, and practice. Springer Science +
Business Media.
Young, M. H., Erdberg, P. S., & Justice, J. (2008). Inmates in prison psychiatric treatment: a multimethod examination. In C.B. Gacono,
F.B. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L.A. Gacono (Eds.), The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. 403-420). New York:
Lawrenc
10: Gacono & Smith
SIS JOURNAL OF PROJECTIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND MENTAL HEALTH
(An Official Publication of Somatic Inkblot Society)
Published Regularly Twice a Year in January and July First Volume Published in 1994
All Volumes of the SIS Journal are also available in PDF Format.
Individuals/Institutions can become Member of Somatic Inkblot Society
by Submitting Membership Application Form
Given in the Journal and Receive Print Version/Soft Copy of the Journal
Published After the Date of Membership Free of Cost
Bankey L. Dubey, Ph.D., DM & SP,
Editor Emeritus,
SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health,
Email: bldubey@gmail.com
SIS CERTIFICATION
Be a certified trainer and practitioner of Somatic Inkblot Test. The Participants will be certified by
International Somatic Inkblot Society. The certificate program is open to Psychiatrists, Clinical
Psychologists, Psychologists, Psychiatric Social Workers, and HR Professionals.
Bankey L. Dubey, Ph.D.,
Director Dubay Healing Centre,
7490 Coon Club Rd, Medina, OH 44256 (USA)
E-mail: bldubey@gmail.com
