West M M
University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Child Abuse Negl. 1998 Nov;22(11):1151-66. doi: 10.1016/s0145-2134(98)00086-6.
This meta-analysis of 12 studies assesses the efficacy of projective techniques to discriminate between sexually abused children and nonsexually abused children.
A literature search was conducted to identify published studies that used projective instruments with sexually abused children. Those studies that reported statistics that allowed for an effect size to be calculated, were then included in the meta-analysis. There were 12 studies that fit the criteria. The projectives reviewed include The Rorschach, The Hand Test, The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), the Kinetic Family Drawings, Human Figure Drawings, Draw Your Favorite Kind of Day, The Rosebush: A Visualization Strategy, and The House-Tree-Person.
The results of this analysis gave an over-all effect size of d = .81, which is a large effect. Six studies included only a norm group of nondistressed, nonabused children with the sexual abuse group. The average effect size was d = .87, which is impressive. Six studies did include a clinical group of distressed nonsexually abused subjects and the effect size lowered to d = .76, which is a medium to large effect.
This indicates that projective instruments can discriminate distressed children from nondistressed subjects, quite well. In the studies that included a clinical group of distressed children who were not sexually abused, the lower effect size indicates that the instruments were less able to discriminate the type of distress. This meta-analysis gives evidence that projective techniques have the ability to discriminate between children who have been sexually abused and those who were not abused sexually. However, further research that is designed to include clinical groups of distressed children is needed in order to determine how well the projectives can discriminate the type of distress.
本对12项研究的荟萃分析评估了投射技术在区分遭受性虐待儿童和未遭受性虐待儿童方面的有效性。
进行文献检索，以识别使用投射工具研究遭受性虐待儿童的已发表研究。然后，将那些报告了可用于计算效应量统计数据的研究纳入荟萃分析。有12项研究符合标准。所审查的投射工具包括罗夏墨迹测验、手部测试、主题统觉测验（TAT）、动态家庭绘画、人物绘画、画出你最喜欢的一天、玫瑰丛：一种可视化策略以及房树人测验。
该分析结果得出的总体效应量d = 0.81，这是一个较大的效应。六项研究仅纳入了无困扰、未受虐待儿童的常模组与性虐待组。平均效应量为d = 0.87，令人印象深刻。六项研究确实纳入了有困扰的非性虐待受试者的临床组，效应量降至d = 0.76，这是一个中等到较大的效应。
这表明投射工具能够很好地将有困扰的儿童与无困扰的受试者区分开来。在纳入了有困扰但未遭受性虐待儿童临床组的研究中，较低的效应量表明这些工具区分困扰类型的能力较弱。这项荟萃分析表明投射技术有能力区分遭受性虐待的儿童和未遭受性虐待的儿童。然而，需要进一步开展纳入有困扰儿童临床组的研究，以确定投射工具在区分困扰类型方面的效果如何。
