a Department of Psychology , University of Toledo.
b The Menninger Clinic.
J Pers Assess. 2019 Jul-Aug;101(4):374-392. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2018.1458315. Epub 2018 May 3.
This article documents and discusses the importance of using a formal systematic approach to validating psychological tests. To illustrate, results are presented from a systematic review of the validity findings cited in the Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 2003) test manual, originally conducted during the manuscript review process for Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel's (2013) CS meta-analyses. Our review documents (a) the degree to which the CS test manual reports validity findings for each test variable, (b) whether these findings are publicly accessible or unpublished studies coordinated by the test developer, and (c) the presence and nature of data discrepancies between the CS test manual and the cited source. Implications are discussed for the CS in particular, the Rorschach more generally, and psychological tests more broadly. Notably, a history of intensive scrutiny of the Rorschach has resulted in more stringent standards applied to it, even though its scales have more published and supportive construct validity meta-analyses than any other psychological test. Calls are made for (a) a mechanism to correct data errors in the scientific literature, (b) guidelines for test developers' key unpublished studies, and (c) systematic reviews and meta-analyses to become standard practice for all psychological tests.
本文记录并讨论了使用正式的系统方法来验证心理测试的重要性。为了说明这一点，我们呈现了对罗夏综合系统（CS；Exner，2003）测试手册中引用的效度发现进行系统审查的结果，该审查最初是在 Mihura、Meyer、Dumitrascu 和 Bombel（2013）的 CS 元分析的手稿审查过程中进行的。我们的审查记录了：（a）CS 测试手册为每个测试变量报告效度发现的程度，（b）这些发现是公开可获得的还是由测试开发者协调的未发表研究，以及（c）CS 测试手册和引用来源之间是否存在数据差异及其性质。讨论了对 CS 特别是罗夏测试以及更广泛的心理测试的影响。值得注意的是，对罗夏测试的密集审查历史导致对其应用了更严格的标准，尽管其量表比任何其他心理测试都有更多的已发表和支持的结构效度元分析。呼吁采取以下措施：（a）纠正科学文献中数据错误的机制，（b）测试开发者关键未发表研究的指南，以及（c）系统审查和元分析成为所有心理测试的标准做法。
