Biomedical subjects

Joseph Masling

Publications and source records attributed to Joseph Masling.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

When Homer nods: an examination of some systematic errors in Rorschach scholarship.

Considerable evidence has demonstrated that many scientists attempt to avoid disconfirmation of a favored theory. This tendency sometimes characterizes the scholarship of both those who favor the Rorschach (Exner, 2000) method and those who find it seriously flawed. Psychologists who use the Rorschach impressionistically are not deterred by the literature demonstrating that this procedure has thus far shown little established validity. Those who criticize the Rorschach dismiss the objectivity of the American Psychological Association (APA) Blue Ribbon Panel, which concluded that the test has proven validity, and by implication, they also dismiss the APA peer review process that approved the panel report. In addition, they ignore over 400 published studies showing the Rorschach has acceptable validity when responses are scored objectively.

Bias↗

PubMed2002

Speak, memory, or goodbye, Columbus.

This article describes the vicissitudes in the career of a psychologist who entered graduate school almost immediately after the end of World War II at a time when the standards and definitions of appropriate training in clinical psychology were still being determined. Looking back at the developments in this career, a pattern of interests, unseen at the time, can now be detected. From investigating the influence of the subject-examiner relationship in the testing situation to the experimental study of psychoanalytic propositions, first using the Rorschach test and later by means of subliminal stimulation procedures, one central theme was the uncovering of disguises and hidden motives. A second major theme, much more explicit than the first, was the primacy of data over speculation.

History, 20th Century↗

PubMed2002

How do I score thee? Let me count the ways. Or some different methods of categorizing Rorschach responses.

The controversy over the merit of Exner's (1986) Comprehensive System (CS) has unfortunately led to a confusion of the CS with all methods of scoring responses to inkblots. Six other widely used Rorschach scoring methods and representative examples of the research they have generated are described. Objective tests of personality ask participants to acknowledge explicit motives, whereas projective tests sample implicit needs participants may not recognize. Projective methods provide unique means of studying personality dynamics. The CS, whatever its merits and limitations, is but 1 of a number of systems of categorizing Rorschach responses.

Humans↗