Hartmann E
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway.
J Pers Assess. 2001 Jun;76(3):461-71. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7603_07.
The effect of administering the Rorschach Inkblot Method under 2 instructional sets was compared across 19 outcome measures. Sixty healthy participants randomly received either the short instruction "What might this be?" originally developed by Rorschach (1942) and recommended in the Comprehensive System (Exner, 1993), or a long instruction (Killingmo, 1980), which for many years has been the standard instruction in Norway. The short instruction produced significantly more questions to the examiner about the test and more brief protocols R < 14) than did the long one. However, for the traditional summary Rorschach scores no between-group differences were observed for the 2 instructional sets. It is suggested that if future studies of larger clinical and more representative samples demonstrate corresponding results, a more elaborate standard instruction might be preferable.
在两种指导语条件下施测罗夏墨迹测验的效果，在19项结果指标上进行了比较。60名健康参与者被随机分配，要么接受罗夏（1942年）最初制定并在综合系统中推荐（埃克斯纳，1993年）的简短指导语“这可能是什么？”，要么接受多年来一直是挪威标准指导语的长指导语（基林莫，1980年）。与长指导语相比，简短指导语使被试向考官提出的关于测试的问题显著增多，且产生的简短记录（R<14）也更多。然而，对于传统的罗夏测验汇总分数，两组指导语之间未观察到组间差异。有人建议，如果未来对更大规模临床样本和更具代表性样本的研究显示出相应结果，那么或许更详尽的标准指导语会更可取。
