The Rorschach has been leaked by Wikipedia.
I debated posting this news item, because it adds to the publicity for what would appear to be at least a borderline ethical act. However, as reported by the New York Times and other media outlets, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been engulfed in a furious debate involving psychologists who are angry that the 10 original Rorschach plates are reproduced online, along with common responses for each. For them, the Wikipedia page is the equivalent of posting an answer sheet to next year’s SAT. They are pitted against the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia’s users, who share the site’s “free culture” ethos, which opposes the suppression of information that it is legal to publish. (Because the Rorschach plates were created nearly 90 years ago, they have lost their copyright protection in the United States.)
I am not sure how to respond to the news item. The availability is nothing new. Back when I gave the Rorschach, I often wondered about the availability in the library of books that contained the Rorschach cards and responses. Sure those were not as easily available and cost money to purchase, but were in most University libraries. So, people having access to images of the cards is not new. If this only occurred with non-copyright protected documents it would be easier to deal with and accept.
So is there a lesson. If there is it is that for those human resource professionals involved in testing, the security of tests will remain a huge problem and will probably become a more significant issue in the future.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Guess it depends on whether the Rorschach is considered by the majority of the clinical profession to be a valid instrument?
I think an important thing to keep in mind is that the Rorschach is a projective and thus subjective test. It’s inappropriate to compare it to the SAT, which is objective and therefore has a correct and incorrect answer. If you were to find an answer to the SAT and pass it off as your own, you would do exactly that–pass. The Rorschach Inkblot test is not one with defined correct answers. Even if you read some popular or acceptable answers on wikipedia it does not mean that you will be spared (or wrongfully afforded) a clinical diagnosis.
You mentioned that many books containing ‘answers’ are available for free in the library. Is this issue with the Rorschach that the answers are available at all or that the answers are newly available to anyone with a minimal amount of effort?
A wise professor once told me that many tests are intelligence tests in disguise (e.g., drug tests). Perhaps the real upset here is that the bar cheaters have to jump over in order to cheat successfully has just been lowered.
Hey I like the Henny Youngman-like title (take my wife-please). I wonder how many (young) readers remember him.
Bryan, If you look at meta-analyses, it is as valid as most other personality instruments (although there is some controversy about these findings, and that may not be saying a lot). On the other hand, the argument is that it should add incremental validity to objective instruments, which is more doubtful. However, projectived do overcome many faking issues, but not the issue of being trained in how to respond.
Alycia, I would agree with you. Especially when the Rorschach is given by a highly trained examiner. To quote Bob Dylan –
A self-ordained professor’s tongue
Too serious to fool
Spouted out that liberty
Is just equality in school
I think that means never trust a professor.
Tim,
Good Catch. But it was more complex than that. It was also a takeoff on the Abbie Hoffman famous “Steal This Book” as well as the famous National Lampoon “Buy this Magazine.”
Happily, the Rorschach is not used in things like making parole decisions.
It may well have a long and leasing role in clinical measurement, but since its hayday, there have been a great many comparably useful instruments developed to assist in understanding human motivation.
For my part, at this point in psychometric history, “exposing” the Rorschach has about as much impact on the integrity of the industry as exposing the Myers-Briggs.
Mark, A good point, especially from a human resources’ point of view. Interest in projectives in human resources seems to have dropped to just about zero, even as a component of an assessment center. Of course, there is still the more general point concerning the ease with which tests are distruted to a wide audience these days.