Content area
Full Text
In clinical practice, one comes across many fears, misgiving, apprehensions and misconceptions about projective techniques, particularly about the inkblot techniques. These misconceptions in general population need to be effectively removed or controlled at least if it is not possible to remove them completely. This needs to be done at an early date and sooner the better for all concerned-before it takes roots and starts biasing or poisoning the young scientists mind against them and their usefulness or uselenssness as the case might be. Unrealistic expectations may be as bad as misconceptions.
Firstly, it is sometimes stated that "these are unstandardized techniques and not tests". Here one can find two misconceptions rather than one-inkblot techniques are as standardized as any other psycholgical instrument or test, the stimulus is fixed and so are the instructions and administration. Very little variation, if any is allowed by trained and qualified tester. However, untrained tester or unqualified testers may show varioations at time. We cannottake for granted their ownclaims of being "trained" or "self trained". These claims need to be checked first. Like any other highly complex tasks, inkbots also require sufficient training and practice under qualified, well experienced persons in the use of these techniques-without which it would not be surprising to find variations in results obtained and often being misinterpreted to indicate limitations of the instrument as such. After all any well standardized test can be misused, in an unstandartised way, by self-proclaimed "qualified" testers. The standard instruments get thus blamed for any unreliablity of the results. It goes without saying that actual blame lies elsewhere.
Differentiation between a "technique" and a "test" is very difficult, if not impossible. Both terms are sometimes used...