The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques

By S. Lilienfeld, J. Wood, H. Garb. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2000

687 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f0e69481727641673d8d29aef6190604ef2700eb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. Wilhelm Hofmann
2. Malte Friese
3. Bertram Gawronski
4. Edwin A. Locke
5. Manfred J. Schmitt
6. Gary P. Latham
7. Brian K. Payne
8. Klaus Fiedler

In Clinical Psychology

1. Gary P. Latham
2. Edwin A. Locke
3. C. Boddy
4. Malte Friese
5. Russell E. Johnson
6. Michael Howe
7. Manfred J. Schmitt
8. M. Bing

Citations in the corpus

• Projective Techniques in Market Research: Valueless Subjectivity or Insightful Reality? A Look at the Evidence for the Usefulness, Reliability and Validity of Projective Techniques in Market Research (2005, background): “This sort of criticism has led to the controversial status of projective techniques in clinical psychology, as described by Lilienfeld et al. (2000).”
• The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System (4th ed.) (2006, background): “Critics (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2001) have focused on the psychometric limitations of the Comprehensive System; these limitations make the test less defensible for school psychologists.”
• The reliability of a Picture Story Exercise measure of implicit motives: Estimates of internal consistency, retest reliability, and ipsative stability (2008, background): “Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / j rp The reliability of a Picture Story Exercise measure of implicit motives: Estimates of internal consistency, retest reliability, and ipsative stability Oliver C. Schultheiss ”
• Tourists’ Attitudes toward Proactive Smartphone Systems (2016, background): “There has been notable criticism of studies using projective techniques in terms of reliability and validity, especially in clinical psychology (e.g., Lilienfeld, Wood, and Garb 2000).”
• Is the Implicit Association Test a Valid and Valuable Measure of Implicit Consumer Social Cognition (2004, background): “Even as projective techniques were intended to help measurement in situations where respondents do not know something or are unable to communicate it (Rapaport, Gill, & Schafer, 1968), these measures often lack convergent validity and are poor psychometric instruments ( Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 200”
• An inkblot for attitudes: affect misattribution as implicit measurement. (2005, background): “A recent review ( Lilienfield, Wood, & Garb, 2000 ) concluded, “the substantial majority of Rorschach and TAT indexes are not empirically supported.”
• What Should we do About Motivation Theory? Six Recommendations for the Twenty-First Century (2004, background): “Projective measures may be useful (see Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000 ), but they are riddled with such difficulties as low internal reliability and the effect of choice of pictures (in the case of the TAT).”
• Integrating Implicit and Explicit Social Cognitions for Enhanced Personality Assessment (2007, methodology): “…described below, cognitive ability was controlled for because past research has demonstrated its importance in the prediction of effort and performance and its relationship with AM (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Lilienfeld et al., 2000; Maqsud, 1997; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).”
• When and why do implicit measures predict behaviour? Empirical evidence for the moderating role of opportunity, motivation, and process reliance (2008, background): “However, although projective techniques are widely used in clinical psychology, very low reliabilities often impede satisfactory predictive validity on an individual basis (Lilienfeld et al., 2000).”