Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and ...

226 chapter 10 projective techniquesdo not meet even the minimum of basicpsychometric standards, and their use,therefore, detracts from the assessmentprocess and tarnishes the image thatpsychological testing has with other professionalsand with the general public(Anastasi, 1988; Gittelman-Klein, 1986;Hunsley & Bailey, 2001). In Box 10.1,we have attempted to summarize some ofthe major arguments made on either sideof this debate.Our philosophy in writing this chapterwas not to espouse either of the strong viewson projective testing. Instead, our goal wasto provide the reader with an overview ofthis method of assessment that would allowfor an informed view of the appropriate roleof projective techniques in clinical assessments.Too often in the past the debate overprojectives has focused on ideological arguments,or even on personal beliefs, withouta critical and scholarly examination of theactual issues involved. Therefore, the firstpart of this chapter focuses on what we feelare the major issues in the use of projectivesthat determine whether they should beused and how they should be used in clinicalassessments.Irrespective of one’s eventual stand onthe projective controversy, projective techniquesremain one of the most commonlyused methods of clinical assessment by psychologistsin general (Watkins, Campbell,Neiberding, & Hallmark, 1995) and by childpsychologists specifically (Hojnoski, Morrison,Brown, & Matthews, 2006). This fact isBox 10.1The Projective DebateProLess structured format allows clinician greaterflexibility in administration and interpretationand places fewer demand characteristics thatwould prompt socially desirable responsesfrom an informant.Allows for the assessment of drives, motivations,desires, and conflicts that can affecta person’s perceptual experiences but areoften unconscious.Provides a deeper understanding of a personthan would be obtained by simply describingbehavioral patterns.Adds to an overall assessment picture.Helps to generate hypotheses regarding a person’sfunctioning.Non-threatening and good for rapportbuilding.Many techniques have a long and rich clinicaltradition.ConThe reliability of many techniques is questionable.As a result, the interpretations are morerelated to characteristics of the clinician thanto characteristics of the person being tested.Even some techniques that have good reliabilityhave questionable validity, especiallyin making diagnoses and predicting overtbehavior.Although we can at times predict things wecannot understand, it is rarely the case thatunderstanding does not enhance prediction(Gittelman-Klein, 1986).Adding an unreliable piece of information toan assessment battery simply decreases theoverall reliability of the battery.Leads one to pursue erroneous avenues in testingor to place undue confidence in a finding.Detracts from the time an assessor couldbetter spend collecting more detailed, objectiveinformation.Assessment techniques are based on an evolvingknowledge base and must continuallyevolve to reflect this knowledge.