Society for Personality Assessment/Journal of Personality Assessment: A History

In 2018 the Society of Personality Assessment is celebrating the 100th anniversary volume of its journal, the Journal of Personality Assessment. During this long history, the journal has played a key role in the emergence and development of the field of personality assessment and has been an integral part of the society's focus and activity. The following narrative in Issue 1 of Volume 100 of the journal is a fitting tribute to the society and the journal. It tells the story of how they came into being and recounts events that have shaped them over the years.

The story begins in 1934, when Bruno Klopfer emigrated from Switzerland to the United States. He had been living in Switzerland for just over a year, having moved to Zurich from Berlin to escape the persecution of Jews that had come to characterize Nazi Germany. Well-educated, with a 1922 PhD from the University of Munich, Klopfer had advanced to a senior psychologist staff position at the Berlin Information Center for Child Guidance. He had also begun a personal psychoanalysis with the intent of becoming an analyst himself, and he was particularly attracted to the conceptualizations of Carl Jung. On learning of Klopfer's wish to leave Germany, his analyst made some employment inquiries on his behalf, and Jung responded to one of these inquiries by offering to help Klopfer find a job if he moved to Zurich.

The position awaiting Klopfer when he arrived in Zurich consisted of giving the Rorschach to prospective employees of various Swiss businesses. He had not had any prior experience with the Rorschach, and he was shown by a coworker how to administer and code it. He soon became intrigued by what the inkblot method could reveal about an individual's personality characteristics, but he became unhappy with having to give the Rorschach once or twice every day. His searching for other job opportunities led to his being offered a position as a research associate in the Department of Anthropology at Columbia University, and he set sail for New York.

The Rorschach method was already visible in the United States when Klopfer arrived in New York. Samuel Beck had done his doctoral dissertation on the Rorschach and published the first English-language Rorschach article in 1930, and Marguerite Hertz had completed a doctoral dissertation on the Rorschach in 1932. Once settled in his position at Columbia, Klopfer became aware of a growing interest among some students and local professionals in learning about the Rorschach. With this in mind, he asked the Department of Psychology at Columbia if it would be interested in having him offer a seminar on Rorschach assessment. The department chair at the time, the eminent experimental psychologist Robert S. Woodworth, reportedly had a favorable view of the Rorschach, but he was not quite ready to include it in his curriculum.

Not to be denied, however, some interested students and staff members asked Klopfer if he would be willing to give them a private seminar, which he agreed to do. The Klopfer seminars began with seven participants who met with him in a group member's apartment two evenings a week for 6 weeks. Word soon spread about the quality and value of these seminar sessions, and before long they expanded to three separate groups of participants each meeting weekly with Klopfer on a continuing basis. As the number of current and previous seminar participants grew, and as participants began exchanging ideas among themselves about Rorschach assessment, Klopfer had by 1936 become interested in forming a Rorschach Institute and facilitating information exchange with a periodical publication—and thus were born the Society for Personality Assessment and the Journal of Personality Assessment. The following history of the society and the journal, beginning with the early years, derives from several sources that are identified at end of this story.

The early years

The Rorschach Institute began as an informal interest group in 1936. Two years later, in 1938, it was incorporated as a formal society with by-laws, officers, membership requirements, and a stated purpose. Although Klopfer had been the impetus and primary architect of the newly incorporated society, he preferred not to hold a term-limited elective office in it. He wanted instead to be a permanent director of the organization, with continuing responsibility for managing its business and editing its publication. So it was, with Klopfer being named Director of the Institute and Chairman of its Board of Directors, which consisted initially of a president (Morris Krugman), a vice-president (Douglas Kelley), a secretary (Ruth Wolfson), and a treasurer (Gladys Tallman).

Established along with the Institute's officers were standing committees to address editorial, training, and research policies and procedures. At its inception, the Rorschach Institute numbered 30 Charter Fellows and 36 Charter Members. This founding group included, in addition to Klopfer himself, such historical personality assessment luminaries as Molly Harrower, Marguerite Hertz, Mortimer Meyer, Florence Miale, David Rapaport, Maria Rickers-Ovsiankina, and Zygmunt Piotrowski. In these early formative years of the Institute, Hertz succeeded Krugman as president in 1940 and was followed by Piotrowski in 1941 and Rickers-Ovsiankana in 1942, with Klopfer, as planned, remaining as director.

The publication that Klopfer founded and edited was initially titled the Rorschach Research Exchange. The first volume of this new publication appeared in five issues, two in 1936 and three in 1937. The journal's text was typed on a mimeograph form and copied onto 8–1/2” × 12” sheets of paper, and the first issue of the 1936–1937 volume consisted of just one substantive article, a 13-page comment by Sender and Klopfer,“Application of the Rorschach Test to Child Behavior Problems as Facilitated by a Refinement of the Scoring Method.” The cost of this initial issue was covered by contributions from 14 Institute members, each of whom donated $12 for this purpose. The subsequent four issues of Volume 1 increased in length and brought the total page count of this initial volume to approximately 160. Volume 1 was followed by a 1937–1938 four-issue Volume 2 and a 1938–1939 four-issue Volume 3. By the time of Volume 4 in 1940, the journal had settled into an annual four-issue publication averaging about 200 pages in length.

Following these initial events in the founding of the Rorschach Institute and the Rorschach Research Exchange, both the society and its journal grew considerably over the years in size, scope, visibility, and impact. Along the way, the membership confronted numerous issues and had to resolve a variety of controversies, while remaining firmly committed to its purpose, as stated in the current by-laws: “The Society for Personality Assessment is dedicated to the development of methods of personality assessment, the advancement of research on their effectiveness, the exchange of ideas about the theory and practice of personality assessment, and the promotion of the applied practice of personality assessment.” The clarity of this statement of purpose notwithstanding, the history of the society and its journal can be reviewed in terms of several questions the membership has debated: What should we call ourselves? Who should belong? How should we be governed? What should we publish? Where should we meet? Should we affiliate? Should we credential? What measures should we prefer? How should we manage external affairs?

What should we call ourselves?

In the early years, the names Rorschach Institute and Rorschach Research Exchange fit well with the interests of the organization and the content of its journal, both of which were concerned almost entirely with what has become called the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM). In time, however, articles on other tests began to appear in the journal, and some respected members of the Institute became equally or even more interested in tests other than the RIM, beginning with the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and the Draw-a-Person (DAP). Faced with developing interest in these other tests, purists in the Institute argued strenuously for keeping the organization and the journal focused exclusively on the RIM. By 1946, however, a majority of the membership had come to favor official recognition of projective measures other than the RIM, which led them to propose changing the name of the organization to the Society for Projective Techniques and the Rorschach Institute, and the name of the journal to the Rorschach Research Exchange and Journal of Projective Techniques. These changes were made in 1947, but just 2 years later, over the strong objection of many early members of the Institute, the Rorschach name was dropped from both the society and the journal. In 1950, then, the name of the organization became the Society of Projective Techniques (widely referred to as the SPT), and the journal title became the Journal of Projective Techniques (widely referred to as the JPT).

However, the terminology debate was not yet over. As a result of its becoming increasingly visible, the journal began to receive and publish manuscripts on self-report as well as projective methods. The first nonprojective articles to appear in the journal were a 1961 paper by Earl Taulbee, “The Relationship Between Rorschach Flexor and Extensor M, the MMPI, and Psychotherapy,” and a 1962 paper by Marvin Goldfried, “Rorschach Developmental Level and the MMPI as Measures of the Severity of Psychological Disorders.” Publication of these nonprojective articles was accompanied by a 1962 journal editorial stating that “to broaden its scope and enhance the understanding of individuals, the journal will now accept manuscripts that employ nonprojective techniques.” The following year the journal name was amended to Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, and in 1971 Projective Techniques was dropped, leaving the presently titled Journal of Personality Assessment (JPA) and the now familiar organization name of the Society for Personality Assessment (SPA).

Recently a proposal has emerged to consider changing the P in the society and journal names from Personality to Psychological, which would result in a Society for Psychological Assessment and a Journal of Psychological Assessment. A proposal to this effect was the topic of a roundtable discussion at the 2016 midyear meeting of the society in which a variety of views were expressed. There seems general agreement that the society could be made more attractive to potential members and the journal more appealing to a wider audience by broader attention to assessment methods other than the usual self-report and performance-based personality tests, such as cognitive and neuropsychological assessment instruments, and to applications other than its traditional clinical focus, such as consultation and organizational psychology.

Accompanying this general agreement, however, are differing opinions concerning how to achieve this broadening. Should “personality” be replaced by “psychological,” or should efforts be made to extend the perception of what is considered relevant to “personality assessment” to include its implications for cognitive and neuropsychological functioning and its applications in a variety of contexts (e.g., clinical, forensic, organizational, educational, and health care). A further consideration is whether changing the name of the society's journal to the Journal of Psychological Assessment would lead to undesirable confusion with the American Psychological Association's (APA) journal Psychological Assessment and thereby detract from JPA's individuality, recognition, and impact.

Who should belong?

When the Rorschach Institute was formalized in 1938, its by-laws specified strict requirements for admission into membership. These requirements included 3 years of graduate education in psychology, medicine, education, social work, or allied fields; sufficient training to meet the requirements of a training committee; presentation of 25 Rorschach protocols administered and accurately scored by the applicant; and satisfactory demonstration to an examining body of a basic understanding of the principles of Rorschach interpretation. Over time these requirements were relaxed somewhat by providing three alternative categories of membership: Members, who have a doctorate in psychology, medicine, or a related field and are involved in personality assessment at an acceptable level of supervised experience; Associates, who have not yet satisfied the Member requirements but are engaged in graduate psychology studies and have had some supervised experience in personality assessment; and Student Affiliates, who are undergraduate or graduate students in psychology and who are sponsored by a doctoral-level SPA member. Even with these relaxed requirements, applicants for membership needed sponsorship from a society member until 2005, when the by-laws were changed to eliminate the need for a sponsor.

Creation of the Student Affiliate membership category contributed substantially to the growth and vitality of the society. Large numbers of student members began to attend the society's annual midyear meeting, where they enriched the convention program with presentations and posters based on their research and brought with them an enthusiasm for personality assessment that was reassuring to society members concerned about the future of the field. The student members were formally organized as the Society for Personality Assessment Association of Graduate Students (SPAGS) in 2006 with 350 members. In addition to its own officers, SPAGS was given an opportunity to elect a student representative to serve on the SPA Board of Trustees.

The overall size of the society's membership has fluctuated during its history. From the beginning of the Rorschach Institute with 66 charter Members and Fellows, the organization had grown to 748 members by the time it became the SPA in 1971. In 1979 there were 942 members, and during the 1980s the membership ranged from 1,040 to 1,650 members. In the 1990s the membership swelled to well over 2,000 members, reaching as many 2,661 names in the 2003 SPA Directory. Surprised by these numbers, the Board investigated the Directory process and found that new members were being regularly added to the membership list, but the names of members who had died or dropped out of the society had not for some time been removed from the list. Correction of this oversight resulted in a considerable reduction of the membership list, which stabilized at approximately 1,350 names during the period from 2013 to 2016. At the time of the present writing, the membership stands at approximately 1,200.

Lest this decreased membership suggest declining interest in personality assessment or diminishing vitality of the society, three observations are in order. First, although the number of psychologists and the number of clinical psychology students seeking internships have been growing for many years, so has the number of organizations seeking to enroll them. Almost every division of APA and most clinically relevant special interest groups have been experiencing declining membership, and SPA is far from alone in this regard. Second, the society is enriched by a diverse membership, which currently includes 154 members from 27 countries outside of the United States and 156 student affiliates. Third, the enduring vitality of the society is evidenced not only by the scope, quality, and impact of its journal, but also by the size, substantive richness, and enthusiastic participation that characterize its annual midyear meeting, which in 2017 had the largest registration in its history, numbering well over 500 attendees.

How should we be governed?

As was noted in recounting the early years of the society, Bruno Klopfer was the founder and original Director of the Institute, on a continuing basis, and other members served 1-year terms as president under his supervision. This hierarchy remained in place until 1948, when Klopfer gave up his directorship and surrendered his authority to the society's president, who at the time was Theodora Abel. Although no longer director, Klopfer did not withdraw from participation in society governance, and he himself was later elected as the 1956–1957 society president. The initial four elective positions on the Board of Directors—president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer—remained as they were for many years, although the vice-president position was changed to president-elect and the outgoing president kept on the Board as past president.

In 1954, the society's growth and geographical expansion called for enlarging the governing board to include an eastern representative and a western representative. With continuing growth and diversification, the eastern and western representative positions were changed in 1988 to representative at large, their number was increased from two to three, and 10 years later, in 1998, from three to four. As an additional departure from prior practice, the terms of the president, past president, and president-elect were lengthened in 1986 from 1 year to 2 years. The terms of other members serving on the Board have varied in length, with the present by-laws of the society specifying 3-year terms for the secretary and treasurer and 2-year terms for the members-at-large, with each eligible to seek election for a second term.

The society's committees have always been an instrumental part of its governance. The original editorial, training, and research committees were supplemented in 1948 with the appointment of a membership committee. In subsequent years the committee structure of the society gradually expanded to its current roster of 11 standing committees: Executive, Continuing Education, Membership, Fellows, International, Awards, Nominations, Student Matters, Publications Oversight, Proficiency, and Diversity. In addition to these standing committees, the society's governance currently includes an ad hoc Financial Advisory Committee, a Website Editorial Board, and a Student Association Board. Through much of the society's history, its standing committees consisted only of Board members. To increase member involvement in the governance of the society, the Board decided in 2006 that Board members should continue to chair the standing committees, but non-Board members should also be eligible to serve on them.

Throughout the society's history, its Central Office has played a key role in administering its affairs. Initially the administration of the society fell within the purview of the president and was conducted out of his or her office, with this responsibility changing hands each year as a new president came into office. In 1961, the growing size and complexity of the society convinced the Board that it should have a designated and salaried administrative officer who would serve in this position on a continuing basis. For many years, however, the position of administrative officer was considered only a part-time job, and the managers conducted the society's daily affairs from the office of their full-time day job. First to be hired to fill this position was Marilyn Weir Graves, a full-time executive secretary who on a part-time basis served the society with distinction for 25 years. She was followed in this part-time position by Ann O'Roark, who was herself an actively practicing psychologist. Soon the time came, however, when the society decided that it should have a full-time administrative officer and its own dedicated office space, and thus was created the SPA Central Office.

Three subsequent full-time office managers conducted the society's affairs effectively and made notable contributions to the operations of the Board and the convenience of society members. Manuela Schulze served in this capacity from 1995 to 1999, and during her term the society moved its office twice: the first time into the APA building in Washington, DC, which facilitated interaction with other psychology groups but provided only limited space, and the second time after purchasing its current office location in Falls Church, VA. Paula Garber became office manager in 2002 and provided outstanding administrative leadership for the next 11 years, during which the office manager title was changed to administrative director. She was succeeded as administrative director by Monica Tune, who had been Paula's assistant for 9 years and who is currently following in the tradition of excellence in administering society affairs.

What should we publish?

Along with its changing name over the years, the society's journal has had six editors and undergone numerous changes in format, coverage, and visibility. Bruno Klopfer was the original editor of the journal he had founded and continued in this role until 1966, when Walter Klopfer was appointed his successor. Some said at the time that Walter Klopfer's editorship was a gift from his father, but this was far from the case. Walter Klopfer was a prominent assessment psychologist in his own right and had been the society's president in 1963–1964. Walter Klopfer served as the journal editor until 1985, when Volume 49 was published with Irving Weiner as editor. As determined by the first volume to identity them as Editor, Weiner was succeeded by Bill Kinder in 1983, Gregory Meyer in 2003, and Steven Huprich in 2014. In addition to its journal, the society began in 1991 to publish a twice-yearly newsletter, the Exchange, and in 2014 the Central Office began to supplement the Exchange with a twice-monthly e-newsletter.

Journal format

In 1948 the original mimeographed version of the journal was replaced by typeset copy that was folded over and saddle-stitched to form a 6” × 9” trim size. The minutes of a Board meeting that year commented on “the difficulties of transition from a mimeographed journal concerned solely with the Rorschach to a printed journal embracing the entire field of projective techniques.” As previously noted, the journal had since 1940 been averaging about 200 pages per volume in its mimeographed form. The new 6” × 9” trim size began with 253 pages in 1948, had increased to 482 pages by 1949, and was in the range of 500 to 550 pages during the 1950s and 1960s. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the journal continued to increase in length, averaging about 650 pages per volume.

Two slight changes in format were introduced in the 1954 Volume 18. The reference style was changed to conform with the APA publishing guidelines, and it has since been modified in conjunction with changes in the APA reference style. The second Volume 18 change consisted of listing general articles in alphabetical order, based on the last name of the first author. This alphabetic listing was continued until Volume 30 in 1966, when it was changed to grouping general articles according to their content.

In 1985 the Board decided to replace what had been its in-house printing of the journal with a commercial publisher, and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (LEA) assumed publication of the journal the following year. For the 1986 Volume 50, LEA retained the journal's 6” × 9” trim size but changed its saddle-stitch format to bound issues with the journal's name, year of publication, and volume and issue numbers printed on the spine. LEA expanded the journal size from what had increased to 674 pages in 1985 to 740 pages in 1988 and 840 pages in 1989.

Even with this expansion in size, however, the journal soon encountered a crisis. The submissions and accepted articles had become so numerous, even with a rejection rate of almost 80%, that the publication lag had become unacceptably long. LEA dealt with this problem by publishing two 1990 double-size volumes, 53 and 54, each with four issues. For the next several years, the journal was published in two annual three-issue volumes. This format explains why the society, just 82 years old, is celebrating the 100th anniversary of its journal (Volume 100) in 2018. The journal continued to be published in two volumes each year until 2008, when it was changed to its present frequency of one six-issue volume per year.

In the meantime, to the regret of many society members who were fond of the journal's conveniently small trim size, it was decided in 2003 to increase the journal's resemblance to other prestigious periodicals by enlarging its size to its current 8–1/2” × 11” format. Retaining about the same amount of content, the journal in its new trim size came to approximately 670 pages per volume, which has remained its length since then. In addition to its larger trim size, the journal was graced with a bright yellow cover. The yellow cover served as a distinguishing feature of the journal until 2015, when it was changed to a tan hue.

In 1997 the electronic age caught up with the society and substantially influenced the format of its communications. The Board endorsed a recommendation from Larry Erlbaum to put JPA online, and it did so by establishing an SPA Web page as well as an e-mail account for the central office. In 1999 the society went on the Web and was fortunate in getting the broadly encompassing personality.org as its address. Beginning in 2003 authors were required to submit, in addition to paper copy of their manuscripts, a disk, and not long after that manuscript submissions, together with reviewer comments and editorial decisions, became transmitted entirely by e-mail. Most recently, JPA has endorsed principles of transparency promulgated by the Center for Open Science as a means of facilitating reanalysis and replication of research findings. Among other requirements, transparency calls for authors to include in their research reports information about the availability of their entire data set. Detailed information about the Open Science initiative appear in an editorial by Steven Huprich in Issue 5 of the 2017 JPA Volume 99.

As a final note on its format, LEA continued to publish the journal until 2008, and for 23 years Larry Erlbaum was an active participant in Board meetings, an invaluable source of keen observations and good advice, and a dear friend to the society and to those members who were fortunate to get to know him. When Larry retired from publishing, arrangements were made with Taylor and Francis to succeed LEA as the society's publisher, which it did beginning with Volume 90 in 2008. To the pleasure of society members, Taylor and Francis has continued the LEA tradition of providing a well-stocked exhibition booth at the society's annual midyear meeting.

Journal content: Highlights of the first 99 volumes

During its initial years, the journal consisted of articles, some comments, and an occasional editorial. By Volume 9 in 1945 the journal had added the features of Announcements, News and Notes, and Book Reviews. The Announcements provided information about forthcoming meetings and workshops. The News and Notes offered personal information about the comings and goings of society members. The first book reviewed in the society's journal was Karen Machover's Personality Projection in the Drawing of the Human Figure. Beginning with Volume 12 in 1948, the journal began regularly to report new Members and Fellows of the Society. With Volume 13 in 1949, the contents of the journal were organized to consist of five regular features: Research Contributions, General Reviews and Summaries, Case Studies, Brief Reports, and Book Reviews. Also of note was the inclusion of a Membership Directory in the final issue of each year, which continued to be an annual feature of each volume until 1990, when it was decided to publish the Directory separately each year, together with a copy of the by-laws and a list of the society officers.

The 1950 Volume 14 was noteworthy for the addition to its contents of a TAT Newsletter edited by Robert Holt. The addition of this column mirrored the previously noted broadening of the scope of the journal and the society from the RIM to projective techniques. After 2 years of Holt's editorship, this TAT newsletter was edited until 1955 by Edwin Shneidman (who was the 1962–1963 SPA President). It was then decided that the TAT had become a sufficiently integral part of the society's interests that a separate newsletter concerning it was no longer necessary. This integration was evidenced by Issue 2 of the 1958 Volume 22, which was devoted entirely to TAT articles and included a birthday tribute to Henry Murray.

Volume 15 in 1951 saw some significant additions to the content of the journal. For the first time, pages were allotted for longer monographs as well as articles. A General Newsletter was begun that overlapped somewhat with the Announcements feature but served until 1960 as a source of information about the society's program at the forthcoming APA meeting.

Issue 4 in the 1954 Volume 18 celebrated 70th anniversary of Hermann Rorschach's birth. Included in the contents were the first English translations of three case interpretations written by Rorschach himself. In similar remembrances, Issue 1 in the 1955 Volume 19 celebrated the 80th birthday of Carl Jung with a series of articles on Jungian concepts, and Issue 1 in the 1956 Volume 20 was designated as a Sigmund Freud Commemorative Issue. With respect to other innovative features, the journal began with the 1955 Volume 19 to include minutes of the Board meetings and regular reports from the journal editor. Issues of the 1957 Volume 21 included a President's Report, and a “President's Column” became a regular feature of the journal with the 1963 Volume 27.

Volume 24 in 1960 celebrated the journal's approaching silver anniversary. Special mention was made of Bruno Klopfer's having served as editor for 25 years, and the third issue of the volume included his biography, a list of his publications, and personal accounts of his life and work. As previously mentioned, Volumes 25 in 1961 and 26 in 1962 were notable for the first appearance in the journal of nonprojective articles, which were Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) research papers by Earl Taulbee and Marvin Goldfried. These MMPI papers preceded the 1963 change in the journal's name from Journal of Projective Techniques to Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment. Nevertheless, the journal's broadening scope was not yet evident, and no self-report articles appeared in the 1963 to 1965 Volumes 27 to 29. On the other hand, as testimony to the broad range of projective measures being discussed in the journal at that time, the 1963 Volume 27 included articles on the following 11 tests, some of which might not be familiar to contemporary readers: RIM, Holtzman Inkblot Test, TAT, CAT, Draw-a-Person, Sentence Completion, Hand Test, Blacky, Rosenzweig P-F, Early Memories, and the Szondi.

In the 1966 Volume 30, articles on the MMPI reappeared, along with the initial article on a self-report measure other than the MMPI, which was the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. This volume also included articles on such diverse topics as “Common Psychological Tests Applied to Assessment of Brain Damage,” “Personality Testing of the Handicapped,” and “Identification of Caution: A Correlate of Achievement.” Volume 31 in 1967 ventured into methodology, with an article on “A Multitrait Multidimensional Measurement Approach.” This broadening of content continued in the 1968 Volume 32 with an article on the relationship of left-handedness to opposition and adaptive regression.

That same year, however, the Board discussed whether the journal and the society should emphasize projective techniques or should instead encompass the entire field of personality assessment. Board opinion was divided on the matter, despite the previously noted fact that emerging interest in personality assessment had already led to its being added to the society and journal names. Differences of opinion notwithstanding, broad attention to personality assessment has continued for more than 50 years to be a hallmark of the journal's content.

The 1968 Volume 32 was also notable for the inception of a News and Notes feature edited by Earl Taulbee, who referred to it as “Earl's Pearls” and encouraged society members to write in about themselves and their activities. This News and Notes feature of the journal continued on a regular basis until 1982, and it later reappeared in the society's Exchange when it debuted in 1991.

In the 1970 Volume 34, Walter Klopfer wrote as journal editor that the understanding of individuals is gained through self-reports, projective methods, and observations. Klopfer's observation was among the earliest endorsements of multimethod personality assessment. He added that the change of the journal's name to Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment “labels the integration of projective techniques into the armamentarium of personality assessment methods.” The 1971 Volume 35 was notable for its initial article on computer-based test interpretation (CBTI), which was a report by Raymond Fowler on his pioneering development of a computer program to facilitate MMPI interpretation.

Separately from the journal, the society published in 1973 a special monograph of presentations made at a Bruno Klopfer Memorial Symposium held at UCLA. Memorable among those presentations was a talk by Margaret Mead, the noted anthropologist, who said that she had been introduced to the RIM by David Levy in 1931. According to her report, Levy had administered the RIM to her and encouraged her to use it in her field research. She subsequently did include some Rorschach assessments in her classic study of the Arapesh culture in New Guinea. When Mead returned to the United States in 1933, she said she showed some of her RIM protocols to Levy, who later showed them to Klopfer. On examining these protocols, Klopfer reportedly opined that the person who had taken the records did not know very much about the Rorschach. Regrettably, Mead then decided not to use it any further in her studies.

In the 1974 Volume 34, the journal began to print each year the address given by the recipient of the Distinguished Contribution Award, together with the recipient's bibliography of publications and, later on, his or her picture as well. As another enduring tradition, the 1985 Volume 49 began to list and express appreciation to ad hoc reviewers who had participated in the editorial process during the previous year.

The third issue of the 1986 volume celebrated the 50th anniversary of the society. To mark this occasion, the issue included a congratulatory message from K. W. Bash, then President of the International Rorschach Society; a discussion of clinical and statistical prediction featuring comments from the two most prominent proponents of each at the time, Paul Meehl and Robert Holt; and invited papers by eight previous recipients of the Klopfer Distinguished Contribution Award: Marguerite Hertz (1970), Molly Harrower (1972), Louise Bates Ames (1974), Edwin Shneidman (1976), Albert Rabin (1977), John Exner (1980), Irving Weiner (1983), and Richard Dana (1984).

As a reflection of the dawning computer age, the 1990 Volume 54 introduced a new section on software assessment programs, and periodic software reviews have since been a journal feature. Two issues of the 1991 Volume 57 included a special series of articles on recent developments in personality assessment methodology, one on the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI), which had been published in 1985, and one on the MMPI–2, which had been released in 1989.

Two new features were added to the journal in the 1992 Volume 58. One was a section on Negative Findings, which was intended to inform readers of well-designed studies that failed to confirm important findings or influential conceptualizations from the past. The other was Classics in Personality Assessment, the plan for which was to republish significant articles from the past. Regrettably, both of these new features were short-lived. Two reports of negative results appeared in the 1993 Volume 60, but none after that. Just three articles were reprinted in the Classics feature, two of which had been authored by recipients of the society's Distinguished Contribution Award. These two were a 1960 article by Joseph Masling, “The Influence of Situational and Interpersonal Variables in Projective Testing,” and a 1970 article by Harrison Gough, “Some Reflections on the Meaning of Psychodiagnosis.” The third reprinting was a 1953 article, “The Two Tests in the Rorschach,” authored by Max Levin and accompanied with comments by two other Distinguished Contribution recipients, Sam Beck and Walter Klopfer.

Fortunately for readers, the abbreviated Classics feature found a worthy successor when Marvin Acklin introduced in the 1993 Volume 61 a series of articles on “Rorschach Classics in Contemporary Perspective.” Under his editorship, invited authors reviewed the content and lasting impact of influential books on the RIM. Spread over several issues in the next 2 years, these reviews commented on books and other contributions by Rorschach, Beck, Klopfer, Rapaport, Schafer, Schachtel, Exner, and Weiner.

Along with these mid-1990s commentaries on influential Rorschach books, the journal began regularly to publish special series of articles consisting of invited papers on a designated topic. The topics of these special series reflect the interests and concerns of the society at particular points in time, and they are for this reason identified in the remainder of this recount of the journal's content highlights. This feature began in the 1996 Volume 66 with a special series of articles on “The Interpersonal Circumplex,” and it was followed in Volume 67 by a special series on “The Nature of the Rorschach Task” and one on “Integrating the Rorschach and the MMPI–2.” The 1997 Volume 68 included a special series of articles on “Personality Instruments: Current Status and Future,” one on “Continuing Issues in Personality Assessment,” and one on “Advances in Statistical Methods.” In the 1997 Volume 69 there was a special series on “Human Figure Drawings,” and in the 1998 Volume 70 there were three series of articles, one on “Multicultural Assessment,” one on “Assessment of Psychological Health,” and one on “Millon's Theory and Measures.”

With the 2000 Volume 74 the journal began to publish the master lectures that had been given at the society's previous midyear meeting. The first of these published lectures were talks by Constance Fischer on “Collaborative, Individualized Assessment” and by Irving Weiner on “Making Rorschach Interpretation as Good as It Can Be.” Volume 75 in 2000 included a special section on “The Legacy of Martin Mayman,” who was SPA president in 1996–1997 and whose enormous contributions to personality assessment were recognized by the establishment of the Mayman Award, which is further identified later in this history. Volume 76 in 2001 featured several articles on the life and work of Zygmunt Piotrowski, who as noted earlier was the 1941–1942 Society president, and it was followed in Volume 77 by a series on “Ethical Issues.”

New in the 2002 Volume 78 was a featured “Series of Personality Autobiographies,” which was organized by Steven Strack and Leonard Handler (who was SPA president in 2003–2005). Over the next 10 years the journal published the recollections of 21 well-known figures in personality assessment who were invited to write about their personal and professional life experiences. The following Volume 79 in 2002 included a special series of articles on “Multicultural Assessment.”

In the 2003 Volume 80, the journal content was organized to include, along with general articles and special series of articles, three sections for grouping appropriate entries: “Statistical Development and Applications,” edited initially by David Streiner and Geoff Norman; “Clinical Case Applications,” edited initially by David Nichols and Leonard Handler; and “Book, Software, and Test Reviews,” edited initially by Mark Blais and Charles Peterson. The 2004 Volume 82 featured a special series of articles on “Implications of the HIPAA and Ethics Code,” the 2004 Volume 83 included an issue devoted primarily to articles on “Personality Assessment and Psychotherapy,” and the 2005 Volume 85 featured a special series of articles on “Understanding Construct Validity.”

Also appearing in this 2005 volume was a significant statement by the SPA Board with the following title: “The Status of the Rorschach in Clinical and Forensic Practice: An Official Statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment.” Given the import of this widely distributed and frequently cited white paper, it seems appropriate to include its abstract in this history:

This statement is intended for psychologists, other mental health professionals, educators, attorneys, judges and administrators. Its purpose is to present a summary of the issues and evidence concerning the RIM. This statement affirms that the RIM possesses reliability and validity similar to that of other generally accepted personality assessment instruments, and its responsible use in personality assessment is appropriate and justified. (Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 219–237)

The 2006 Volume 87 of the journal was notable for two additional position statements of considerable import. The first of these was an official statement by the SPA Board of Trustees titled “Standards for Education and Training in Psychological Assessment: Position of the Society for Personality Assessment” (Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 355–357). The second was an editorial by Gregory Meyer and John Kurtz on “Advancing Personality Assessment Terminology: Time to Retire “Objective” and “Projective” as Personality Test Descriptors” (Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 223–225). This editorial marked the inception of the more substantively accurate and currently widely endorsed distinction between self-report assessment measures and performance-based assessment measures. Of further note in this volume was a special issue devoted largely to articles on the MMPI–2, which was followed in the 2007 Volume 88 with a special issue devoted largely to articles on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI).

Volume 88 also introduced as a new closing feature an index by author name of the articles appearing in the volume. The following year the structure of this volume index was changed from an author-based list to a reprinting of the Table of Contents for each issue, which since has been the standard practice. Volume 89 in 2007 included special sections of articles on “Dimensional Versus Categorical Personality Disorder Diagnosis” and “Personality Assessment in Medical Settings.”

The year 2007 in JPA history was also notable for the publication of supplemental Volume 89S, with the title of “International Reference Values for the Comprehensive System.” This volume presented the results of an international collaborative study coordinated by Gregory Meyer, Philip Erdberg (the 1991–1993 SPA president), and Thomas Shaffer in which investigators in 17 countries collected Rorschach records of 21 samples of adult nonpatient volunteers, with a total number of 4,704 participants. The special volume reported the data obtained for each of these samples and provided an integrative combination of the sample findings. These composite scores for Rorschach variables, which have come to be known as the Composite International Reference Values (CIRV), provide a useful cross-cultural basis for determining whether and to what extent a person's Rorschach scores deviate from normative expectation.

Volume 90 in 2008 included a special series of articles on “Empirical Correlates of MMPI–2 RC Scales,” and Volume 91 in 2009 was notable for a special series of articles paying tribute to the recently deceased Paul Lerner, who was the 1991–1993 SPA president and whose vast contributions to the science and practice of personality assessment were subsequently recognized by the 2013 establishment of the Paul Lerner Master Lecture as part of the society's annual meeting program.

The 2010 Volume 92 included a series of articles on “Integrating Personality, Psychopathology, and Psychotherapy.” Volume 93 in 2011 was notable for two special issues, one devoted to the question “Can the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM) Put the Complex Person Back on the Center Stage of Personality Assessment?” and the other devoted to perspectives on “Personality Assessment in the DSM–5.” The 2011 volume also included two special series of articles, one on “Psychological Assessment of Children in a Community Mental Health Clinic,” and the other on “Clinical Applications of the Adult Attachment Projective.”

The 2012 Volume 94 continued several items that had become standard features of the journal. These include the previously mentioned recognition of the current recipient of the Bruno Klopfer Distinguished Contribution Award, with the recipient's picture, bibliography, and acceptance address; a list of the previous recipients of this award; a list of the prior Walter G. Klopfer and Martin Mayman award recipients together with the titles of their award-winning articles; the text of the Master Lectures given at the previous convention; and the regularly appearing sections on Clinical Case Applications and Statistical Developments and Applications. Also of note in this volume was a special section of articles on “Measures to Assess Maladaptive Variants of the Five-Factor Model.”

The 2013 Volume 95 of the Journal featured a special issue on “Advancing the Assessment of Pathological Narcissism.” The 2014 Volume 96 introduced a new regularly recurring feature on “Personality Assessment in the Diagnostic Manuals” and included special series of articles on “Openness to Experience,” “The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY–5),” on “DSM–5 Trait Dimensional Diagnostic System for Personality Disorders: Emerging Convergence,” and on “Mixture Modeling in Personality Assessment.” The 2015 Volume 97 featured three special sections of articles: one on “Personality Assessment and the DSM: A Match Made in Heaven,” one on “Theodore Millon's Legacy for Personality Theory and Assessment,” and one on “Difficult Assessment Cases: Psychodynamic Perspectives.”

Volume 98 in 2016 contained special sections of articles on “Relatedness, Self-Definition, and Mental Representation: Sidney J. Blatt's Contributions to Personality Assessment,” and on “Cultural Considerations in Collaborative and Therapeutic Assessment.” As of the present writing, the 2017 Volume 99 included special sections of articles on “Teaching, Training, and Supervision in Personality and Psychopathology Assessment,” on “Scoring Thematic Apperceptive Techniques for Research and Clinical Use,” on “Linking the MMPI–2–RF to Contemporary Models of Psychopathology,” and on “Personality Assessment and the Law.”

Journal visibility and impact

As just reviewed, the journal over the years broadened the scope and variety of its contents from the RIM to projective techniques, from projective techniques to personality assessment, and more recently from a test-related focus to consideration of such test-related issues as education and training, fields of application, diagnostic terminology, and research methods. With these broadening horizons, the journal expanded in size, visibility, and impact. With respect to its size, the journal as noted previously increased from its initial 13-page issue to a 160-page volume by 1940 and averaged about 200 pages until its 1948 change to a 6” × 9” format. The journal size then gradually increased to 674 pages by 1985, which was the final year prior to the change from a saddle-stitched format to bound volumes. The journal size continued to increase yearly, as previously noted, and had reached 1,300 pages by 2003, when the trim size was changed to its current 8–1/2” × 11” format. In this enlarged format, the journal has settled into a length of approximately 660 pages per volume. As a related historical note, the Rorschach Institute ran off 100 mimeographed copies of the 1936–1937 first volume of the journal, whereas SPA is presently printing 2,000 copies of each journal issue.

The journal's growth and diversity have also been reflected in the size and composition of its Editorial Board. In 1972 the Editorial Board comprised an editor and 21 consulting editors; in 1986 the journal masthead listed an editor, six associate editors, and 42 consulting editors; and in 2017 there were an editor, eight associate editors (three of whom are from abroad), and 54 consulting editors. Traditionally the associate editors were charged with coordinating the reviews of submitted manuscripts and recommending to the editor whether they should be accepted for publication. However, with the increasing number of submissions being processed, in 2016 the editor assigned responsibility for making the final decisions to the associate editors as well.

With respect to the journal's visibility, the annual number of submissions provides a good barometer. Between 1951 and 1956, the yearly number of JPA submissions ranged from 67 to 94. Some 30 years later, in 1983, the annual submission rate had increased to 270; by 1995 it had reached 369 submissions; and more recently, between 2013 and 2016 the number of submissions has ranged from 462 to 494. As for the selectivity and the consequent quality of its content, the journal's rejection rate for submissions other than invited articles has been in the 75% to 80% range from the 1960s to the present day. For comparison, the American Psychologist reported that the 29 journals published by the APA had an average rejection rate of 71% in 2016.

As for the journal's impact, a key index to consider is the widely respected Impact Factor, which is based on the frequency with which a journal's articles are cited elsewhere in the literature. An Impact Factor of 2.000 or more is generally considered to be in the high range. The JPA Impact Factor was 0.943 in 1997, but it increased steadily over the years to reach 2.258 in 2015 and 2.024 in 2016. According to Taylor and Francis, the journal in 2015 ranked 34th out of 121 journals in clinical psychology, which put it in the top 27% among these journals.

Exchange

In 1989 the Board of Trustees began to consider transforming what had been periodic messages from the president into a society newsletter. Thus was born the Exchange, which debuted in 1991 as a twice-yearly 12-page publication that would include, in addition to a president's message, some types of information that had been appearing in the JPA Announcements and News and Notes sections. The Exchange was initially edited by Robert Lovitt, who was followed as editor in 1996 by Virginia Brabender (who was SPA president in 2007–2009) and then by Jed Yalof in 2003 and David Streiner in 2016.

The Exchange soon increased in size to approximately 16 pages per issue and became a valued forum for sharing information, opinions, and recommendations concerning the society's operations and the teaching and practice of personality assessment. Of particular importance was a 2005 decision by the Board to publish minutes of its meetings in the Exchange instead of in the journal, where they had previously been summarized. This decision recognized that the journal audience extends well beyond the society membership and includes many readers with little interest in society affairs. Beginning in 2009, the minutes of Board meetings were also made available on the SPA Web site.

In time, the Exchange became the site of three regular substantive columns on important topics in personality assessment. Jed Yalof introduced a “Teacher's Block” column in 1998; Alan Schwartz began writing a column on “Special Topics in Assessment” in 2006; and in 2008 Linda Knauss started a column on ethical issues in personality assessment. These three authors have continued providing their columns to the present day, with Yalof receiving some interim assistance from Pamela Abraham while he was serving a term as Exchange editor. The 2015 Exchange was also notable for an annotated bibliography of publications on “Teaching and Supervision of Personality Assessment,” prepared by Virginia Brabender and Jed Yalof.

Of particular significance in the Exchange has been a series of reports beginning in 2012 by Mark Blais, who was at the time chairing the society's Personality Assessment Proficiency Committee, and continued by Hadas Pade, who in 2015 was appointed as SPA Proficiency Coordinator. These reports informed readers of the progress being made in defining the parameters of personality assessment proficiency and establishing policies and procedures for recognizing it. The 2017 second issue of the Exchange included a special series of articles on aspects of proficiency in personality assessment. Notable among these is an article by Stephen Finn, the 2001–2003 SPA president, on “Why We Should All Become Proficient.”

Numerous other items of information now appear regularly or periodically in the Exchange. These include lists of new Members and Fellows of the Society; a Personals column reporting on member activities and accomplishments; activity reports from the SPA Foundation, the Public Affairs Director (originally called the Advocacy Corner), SPA interest groups, and the SPA Graduate Students; announcements and comments about the annual midyear convention, with lists of poster session prize winners and honorable mentions; news about the International Rorschach Society and the status and practice of personality assessment abroad; announcements of job openings, continuing education offerings, and recent member deaths; and letters to the editor. Issues of the Exchange are also enlivened by photos of society members giving and receiving awards, making and listening to presentations, and socializing at various events.

E-newsletter

In 2014 Monica Tune, the SPA administrative director, introduced a valuable supplement to the Exchange, a twice-monthly e-newsletter sent from the Central Office to a mailing list of more than 1,800 recipients, not all of whom are SPA members. The e-newsletter provides up-to-date information and announcements on a broad range of topics and is supplemented by a Facebook page that has a following of more than 1,000 viewers. Monica has recently begun to supplement the e-newsletter with “Monica's Tidbits,” an e-mail message to members reminding them of forthcoming SPA events, plans, and deadlines. Taken together, the Exchange and these Central Office communications have substantially enhanced the visibility of SPA among its members, who have never before heard so frequently from their society and been so fully informed about its issues and activities.

Where should we meet?

The Rorschach Institute began in 1940 to have an annual business meeting in the New York City area. These New York business meetings ended with a 1947 Saturday evening dinner session at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. For 1948, the Board of Directors decided to hold its annual meeting in conjunction with an Eastern Psychological Association meeting in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia meeting included some substantive Rorschach presentations as well as the society's business meeting. For 1949, the Board voted to coordinate its annual meeting with a Denver meeting of the APA, and the society continued for the next 27 years to schedule an annual program within the APA meetings. The society's APA program came to include symposia, many of which were presented jointly with Division 12 (Clinical Psychology), along with paper sessions, a business meeting, a dinner, a presidential address, and in later years presentation of the society's Distinguished Contribution Award. The 1949 society business meeting in Denver was attended by 67 members. Beginning in 1952 an Executive Committee meeting was scheduled separately from the business meeting as part of the society's APA program, and in 1957 the Executive Committee, now called the Board of Trustees, began to schedule a midyear meeting in addition to its meeting during APA.

The society's program at APA continued to be substantial, as exemplified by a 1966 program that included several symposia presented jointly with APA Division 12, some individual papers, and a business meeting, although the traditional dinner had now been replaced with a cocktail hour. The annual business meeting for the membership was discontinued in 1969, but a Board of Trustees meeting remained part of the Society's APA program. These arrangements with APA began to change in March 1976, when the society conducted a 1–1/2 day personality assessment program in New York that was separate from APA and consisted of three symposia and eight papers.

The New York program was well received by those in attendance, which led the Board to plan a full-scale midyear meeting the following year. So it was that, in March 1977, in San Diego, the SPA had the first of what was to become its customary annual midyear meetings. The program for this initial midyear meeting consisted of three half-day workshops and 1–1/2 days of symposia, invited addresses, and paper sessions. These three initial midyear workshops were presented by John Exner on the RIM, Charles Newmark on the MMPI, and Fred Shectman and Michael Harty on assessment in treatment planning. That year the society's 1977 APA program was limited to a Board of Trustees meeting and presentation of the Distinguished Contribution Award, with all else now being reserved for the society's midyear meeting.

However, a one-time exception to this limitation was prompted by the society's having established in 1985 the Samuel J. Beck Award (later to be renamed the Samuel J. and Anne G. Beck Award) for outstanding early career research in personality assessment. This award was first presented together with the Klopfer Distinguished Contribution Award at the 1986 APA convention. The following year, in 1987, both the Klopfer and Beck award presentations were moved from the APA meeting to the society's midyear convention. There was some concern at the time that removing these last remaining SPA events from the APA meeting program would have the regrettable consequences of diminishing the society's visibility and depriving assessment psychologists at the APA meeting of an opportunity to hear and talk with the Klopfer recipient. In truth, however, the APA had been scheduling the SPA award presentation at awkward times and in remote locations, and the attendance had dwindled to a very small audience that gratified neither the society membership nor the award recipient. The large and appreciative audiences that subsequently graced the Bruno Klopfer Award presentation and address at the society's midyear meeting bore witness to the wisdom of this 1987 change.

The Board of Trustees nevertheless continued to meet during the APA convention until 1991, when it decided to hold its twice-yearly meetings during the midyear convention and at a fall retreat. In 1992, sponsorship of a social hour at APA was also discontinued. As a contemporary note concerning SPA visibility at APA meetings, however, the society decided in 2017 to have a booth in the Exhibit Hall during the APA meeting in Washington. This booth gave the society both a visible APA presence and an opportunity to distribute SPA promotional materials and converse with current and potential future members about the society's interests and activities.

As for the SPA midyear meetings, the presentation of the Bruno Klopfer and the Sam J. and Anne G. Beck Awards was joined by the presentation of several subsequently created awards. These included the Walter G. Klopfer Award for a distinguished quantitative contribution to the literature in personality assessment, first presented in 1986; the Mary S. Cerney Award for the best personality assessment research paper submitted by a student, first presented in 1997; the Martin Mayman Award for a distinguished qualitative contribution to the literature in personality assessment, first presented in 1999; and the John E. Exner Scholar Award in recognition of empirical personality assessment research by a young investigator, first presented in 2010. In addition to these awards, the society established in 1993 the Marguerite Hertz Memorial, which consists of presentations about the life and work of a deceased eminence in the field, and in 2013 the previously mentioned Paul Lerner Master Lecture, in honor of his vast contributions to the science and practice of personality assessment.

Over time, the Board acted in several other constructive ways to enrich the annual midyear meeting and increase its appeal to the membership. These included a 1990 application to APA for accreditation to offer Continuing Education credits for attendance at some of its sessions. With the granting of this accreditation, members became able to earn CE credits by attending any of the workshops and master lectures, the Klopfer Award and Hertz Memorial sessions, symposia and case discussions, and the presidential address. In 2000 the Board added a poster session to the midyear meeting, which enriched the content of the program and provided opportunities for students and young investigators to display and be recognized for their work. As further encouragement to student participation, the Board began in 2001 to award student travel grants to help defray the costs of attending the annual meeting, and 31 such awards were made in the first year of the program. Also in 2001 the Board further increased the appeal of the annual meeting by inviting book and test publishers to attend and exhibit their products, and in 2007 they added a book-signing session, in which SPA book authors are available to autograph copies of their books.

Beginning in 2011, the society's annual meeting also included discussion sessions for interest groups that had been organized by members on their own initiative and had received Board approval for a place on the program. Seven such interest groups are currently active: Psychoanalytic Assessment, Collaborative/Therapeutic Assessment, Health Psychology, Forensic Psychology, Education and Training, Integrative/Multimethod Assessment, and International Affairs. In addition to their convention sessions, these interest groups regularly publish reports of their activities and concerns in the Exchange. For many years, the annual midyear meeting was also an occasion for the JPA editor to schedule a meeting for the Editorial Board members. These meetings were sometimes held as a breakfast and sometimes as a lunch, and they gave the Editorial Board an opportunity to be informed about journal operations and to enjoy some camaraderie. The expansion of the editorial team in recent years made it no longer feasible to schedule this meeting, which was modified to include just the editor and associate editors of the journal.

The 2013 annual meeting of the society was the occasion for a gala 75th anniversary celebration of the society's 1938 incorporation as the Rorschach Institute. Those who attended the celebratory banquet will well remember the singing performance of the recently deceased Robert Erard, who was a gifted vocalist and the 2009 to 2011 SPA president.

In earlier comments on the present vitality of the society, mention was made of the size, substantive richness, and enthusiastic participation that characterize its midyear meeting, which had a record attendance.in 2017. With respect to substance, the initial 1977 program as previously noted consisted of three half-day workshops followed by 1–1/2 days of symposia, invited addresses, and paper sessions. By 2017 the midyear program had expanded to offer convention attendees eight full-day and 19 half-day workshops to choose from, together with 2–1/2 days of addresses, symposia, and paper sessions.

Should we affiliate?

For much of its early history, the society prided itself on being a free-standing and self-governing organization. Leopold Bellak enunciated this identity with a 1958 statement in the journal that “We need an independent organization with its specialized purposes, which can be much more effective than being any part of a larger association.” Nevertheless, at its 1963 meeting the Society's Board of Trustees discussed a proposal to form an interest group of at least 50 members that would ask the APA Division of Clinical Psychology to create a section on Diagnostic Psychology. Board opinion on this proposal was divided, and no action was taken on it. However, the proposal generated some continuing controversy concerning whether the society should affiliate and, if so, in what way and with whom.

Persistent rumblings in the membership about whether it would be better for the society to have the organizational support structure of an APA affiliation, or instead remain an independent organization beholden only to its specialized purposes, led the Board to take a definite two-pronged stand on the matter in 1966. First, the Board asserted that the two chief activities of the society are publishing the journal and presenting programs at APA meetings. Second, the Board concluded in the following words that, “Since both [of these activities] can be carried out effectively while we remain in our present independent status, there seems no need for pursuing membership or close affiliation with APA.”

However sensible it might have appeared at the time, this resolve proved only temporary. Controversy reemerged in 1969 when Kenneth Little, then the society president (1968–1969) published in the journal a President's Message in which he declared that “The society is moribund.” Little lamented that the society had become a “static organization,” run by a small group of dedicated individuals, without much membership involvement, and he noted that the 1968 annual business meeting of the society had been attended by only four people other than members of the Board. Stirred by Little's message, the Board devoted its 1969 midyear meeting to discussing what kind of organization the society should be and what it should do. Among the questions debated were whether the society should continue mainly as a journal club, whether it should continue moving away from psychodiagnosis to personality assessment, whether it should attempt to become a division of APA, and even whether it should just be disbanded.

In 1970, the society membership was finally given a formal voice in the matter. A survey questionnaire was sent to the then 876 members, asking for a yes or no answer to two questions: (a) Should the society affiliate with APA, and (b) Should the society change its name from the Society for Projective Techniques (SPT) to the Society for Personality Assessment (SPA). Of 562 respondents, 69% voted in favor of seeking an APA affiliation, and 68% supported changing the journal's name to its current one. Undecided, however, was the form an APA affiliation should take. Two position papers were published on this matter. One was authored by Little, who argued for the society becoming a new and separate APA division, and one by Norman Farberow, the 1970–1971 SPA president, who argued for the society becoming a section of APA Division 12 (Clinical) and said also that the Division 12 Executive Committee would welcome SPA as a section. The waters soon became muddied again, however, when Arthur Carr, the 1971–1972 SPA president, urged the society to maintain its image and autonomy as an independent organization.

This controversy was quiescent for a time, but in the early 1980s the society once again gave serious consideration to applying for APA Division status. The Board appointed a committee chaired by Irving Weiner (SPA president from 1976–1978 and 2005–2007) and including Sidney Blatt (SPA president, 1982–1984), Mary Cerney (SPA president, 1993–1995), and Charles Spielberger (SPA president, 1986–1989), and charged it with developing a position paper on the matter. The committee's report, which was distributed to the membership, urged the society to pursue APA Division status. A lively and sometimes heated debate ensued, with familiar overtones from the past. Those who agreed with the report stressed the visibility, political influence, and convention program time that SPA would gain from becoming an APA division. Those who took issue with the report stressed the benefits of remaining a scholarly and professional society focused on the interests of its members and not distracted by APA problems and politics.

Once more a vote of the membership was undertaken, and this time the proposal to apply for APA divisional status was soundly defeated. The minutes of the August 1986 Board meeting stated that, there being so little interest in discussing APA Division status, the matter would be shelved. In subsequent years, the decision to remain an independent society devoted to its members and its own purposes served SPA well. The continuing strength and vigor of the society, the many constructive ventures in which it became successfully engaged, and the scholarly enrichment and personal interactions of its annual midyear meetings testified to this positive outcome.

As matters turned out, however, the society ended up in the enviable position of eating its cake and having it as well. On October 6, 2001, the Board of Directors of APA Division 12 voted to establish the American Academy of Assessment Psychology (AAAP) as Section IX (Assessment Psychology) of the Division. AAAP is the instructional branch of the American Board of Assessment Psychology (ABAP), which had been established a few years earlier to provide Diplomate examinations and certification in psychological assessment. This Division 12 approval of a section on assessment, entirely separate from SPA, included a voting seat on the division's Board of Directors and was orchestrated by two prominent SPA members who had been APA presidents: Charles Spielberger (1991–1992) and Norman Abeles (1997–1998). To be noted in in this last regard, two other SPA members have been elected APA president: Theodore Blau (1977–1978) and Raymond Fowler (1988–1989).

Concurrently with this Division 12 establishment of an Assessment Psychology section, another prominent SPA member, James Butcher, who in 1991 had been appointed as the society's liaison to APA Division 5 (Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics; recently renamed as the Division of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods), was successful in encouraging this division to establish a section on assessment. As in the case of Division 12, this new Division 5 section was allocated a seat on the division's Board of Directors. These leadership positions in Divisions 5 and 12 gave assessment psychologists numerous opportunities to increase their visibility in APA, to advocate on behalf of assessment science and practice, and to influence decisions germane to assessment issues. As other reflections of this broadening influence of SPA members within APA, Irving Weiner subsequently served as president of both Division 12 (2008–2009) and Division 5 (2009–2010); Leonard Handler served on the APA Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment; and Radhika Krishnamurthy, the 2011 to 2013 SPA president, was appointed by the APA Board of Educational Affairs to its Assessment of Competency Benchmarks Work Group.

Should we credential?

In many respects, the initially stringent requirements for membership in the Rorschach Institute constituted credentialing. If a Rorschach credential signifies that the holder is qualified to conduct Rorschach assessments, then being an accepted member of the Institute was akin to having a credential signifying experience and competence in Rorschach assessment. Early on, a majority of the Institute officers felt strongly that the Institute should not become “just another interest group,” as it had been initially in 1936, but should instead be a selective organization of well-qualified professionals. The Institute continued for many years to maintain membership requirements that were tantamount to credentialing. Some proposals were made for less stringent and more flexible membership requirements, but this was a minority view. In 1942 the Board of Directors officially stressed the importance of the qualifications for membership in the Institute and even increased them by specifying “at least 30 hours of intensive study of Rorschach under a recognized instructor” and a minimum of 2 years of clinical or research experience.

The membership requirements gradually eased over the years, but more significant was a marked change in policy. Instead of focusing on qualifications and credentials, the Board in 1987 reaffirmed what had become a prevailing view that “SPA is primarily an interest group and does not certify competence.” Nevertheless, minutes of the 1991 fall meeting of the Board indicate some continuing discussion of whether the SPA should become involved in the credentialing of personality assessment clinicians, with no action being taken. In 1995, however, the Board returned to the matter by appointing an Assessment Specialty Board Committee charged with exploring the possibility of developing a specialty board within the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) that could credential candidates with Diplomate status in psychological assessment.

This proposal met stiff resistance from several ABPP board members, who argued that assessment was an integral part of clinical psychology, which was already an established board specialty, and that assessment should accordingly not have a separate examination process or Diplomate identity. This resistance was subsequently circumvented outside of SPA by the previously mentioned emergence in 1993 of the American Board of Assessment Psychology (ABAP), which had been organized by Alan Raphael “to establish and promote standards for psychologists who specialize in assessment.” ABAP subsequently became and remains a visible presence at the society's conventions, with presentations about its activities and oral examinations of candidates seeking to become ABAP Diplomates.

In 2001 the SPA Board returned to the credentialing issue and reaffirmed the position that the society should not be involved in credentialing processes. Instead, according to the Board meeting minutes, there was general agreement that the society should consider ways of developing common interests with such groups as the ABAP, which, as just noted, does offer a Diplomate in Assessment Psychology.

In the meantime, another avenue for recognizing assessment psychology appeared in 1995, when the APA established a Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology (CRSPPP) and charged it with identifying and clarifying for the public “distinctive patterns of education, training, and practice among professional psychologists.” The SPA Board decided to apply to CRSPPP for recognition of personality assessment as a specialty in psychology. CRSPPP denied this application, on the grounds that personality assessment is too narrow and insufficiently distinctive to qualify as a specialty. However, CRSPPP did endorse personality assessment not as a specialty, but as a proficiency. Subsequently, in 2010, the APA officially recognized Personality Assessment as a Proficiency in Professional Psychology, and it asked SPA to take the lead in arranging for it. On receiving this welcome news, the Board established a Personality Assessment Proficiency Committee, which as previously noted was chaired by Mark Blais and was instructed to develop policies and procedures for identifying appropriately qualified practitioners as being proficient in personality assessment. The policies that were put in place specify standards for proficiency in personality assessment and the capabilities necessary to meet them. The procedures that were established for granting proficiency consist of evaluating an applicant's professional experience and accomplishments and reviewing a submitted work product. Further information about these policies and procedures is available on the SPA Web site.

Thus it came to pass, as a reversal from the historically prevailing opinion that the society should be an interest group and not a credentialing body, it became just that. Without sacrificing its position as the world's leading exponent of scientific scholarship in personality assessment, SPA took on as well the important task of identifying to the public psychologists who had met qualifications for being recognized as proficient in personality assessment.

What measures should we prefer?

The history of the society has been marked by disagreements concerning which assessment methods should be preferred, especially with respect to the two measures that have been most prominent in the society's journal and conference presentations, the RIM and the MMPI. Some of these disagreements have involved polite discourse among colleagues, whereas others have spurred contentious debate.

The society's disagreements about assessment measures began with the well-known rivalry between Sam Beck and Bruno Klopfer, who differed widely in their views of the RIM. As an experimentally trained and oriented psychologist, Beck believed in advancing knowledge through controlled research designs and empirical data collection, and he favored a primarily quantitative approach to Rorschach interpretation. Klopfer was at heart a Jungian analyst who was strongly interested in symbolic meanings and the phenomenology of individual experience, and he favored qualitative approaches to Rorschach interpretation that Beck considered inappropriate.

As a reflection of this ideological gap, Beck was the only one of the Rorschach pioneers who did not participate in the founding of either the society or the journal. Klopfer fueled this gap by publishing a highly critical review of Beck's 1937 book Introduction to the Rorschach Method. Beck wrote a rebuttal to this review that appeared in the Rorschach Research Exchange, but he published only two additional articles in the journal during his long and productive career, and Beck and Klopfer never again spoke to each other. However, Beck eventually relented sufficiently to become a Fellow of the society in 1950 and to serve as its president in 1954 and 1955. Ironically, when the society established the Bruno Klopfer Distinguished Contribution Award in 1965, Beck was chosen as its first recipient.

As a sidelight on the Klopfer award, it was commonly referred to at the time as the “Great Man Award.” When Marguerite Hertz was chosen to receive the award in 1970, she expressed some displeasure at being considered a “Great Man.” Announcements of her award ceremony were consequently modified to identify it as the “Great Wo(man) Award.” Since that bit of awkwardness, the award has been called just the Distinguished Contribution Award. Also of note, the broadening scope of the society from projective measures to personality assessment was evidenced by presentation of the Distinguished Contribution Award to Paul Meehl in 1979 and soon thereafter to such leading self-report assessment specialists as Harrison Gough in 1987 and Grant Dahlstrom in 1994.

Returning to the RIM, the influence of David Rapaport and Roy Schafer in the 1940s and 1950s lent a largely psychoanalytic flavor to the RIM for many years to come. Controversy arose, however, when John Exner, who was the 1974–1975 SPA president, published the first edition of his Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS) in 1974. Some society members expressed concern that the CS emphasis on research-based structural variables would strip the RIM of its interpretive richness, and there were SPA meeting presentations devoted to convincing listeners that the CS was “killing the Rorschach.” This death knell was of course premature, and the concerns it reflected were unfounded. Emphasizing the structural variables in a Rorschach protocol does not preclude attending as well to psychodynamic implications of the thematic imagery in it. For the most part, however, differing post-1974 perspectives on Rorschach assessment coexisted peacefully. Memorable in this regard was an SPA meeting roundtable in which Exner and Paul Lerner, perhaps the most influential psychoanalytic Rorschach clinician of his time, debated their vastly different orientations in a warm, friendly, and entertaining manner.

More recently, the 2011 inception of the Rorschach Performance System (R-PAS) as an alternative method to the CS generated a new set of differences in preferred methodology. In particular, the R-PAS proposed ways of administering and coding the test that differ from traditional CS procedures. However, these differences in how the test is administered and coded are far outweighed by similarities between the CS and R-PAS in the composition and interpretation of their basic variables. As for peace within the society, collegiality and mutual respect among proponents of the CS and R-PAS alternative Rorschach methods have continued in the constructive spirit of the Exner–Lerner divide, without reversion to the Beck–Klopfer antagonism.

Differences of opinion about the MMPI, on the other hand, have at times been more adversarial than collegial. Matters ran smoothly for the most part from the introduction of the MMPI in 1940 until 1989, when the substantially revised MMPI–2 was announced. Some MMPI practitioners strongly resisted adoption of the MMPI–2. In publications and formal presentations, these MMPI–2 opponents challenged its adequacy, maintained that previous MMPI research findings were not applicable to it, and argued that it should not be used until extensive new research had documented its validity. SPA meetings in the early 1990s included symposia devoted to exhorting attendees to reject the MMPI–2 and stay with the “tried and true original MMPI.” Such pleas gradually ran out of steam, as the MMPI–2 became well-researched and widely accepted as the MMPI version of choice.

However, MMPI controversy arose anew in the early 2000s, with the development outside of mainstream MMPI–2 features some new scales named the RC (Reconstructed) Scales. Elaboration of these RC scales subsequently led to the 2011 publication of the MMPI–2–RF (Reconstructed Form), which had fewer items than the MMPI–2 and many different scales. The society and the journal soon became, and remain today, the theater for sharp and sometimes acrimonious debate between MMPI–2 and MMPI–2–RF advocates.

Nevertheless, despite these preferences and differences in opinion regarding the RIM, the MMPI, and other assessment measures as well, the society and the journal have been steadfastly impartial with respect to the submissions that are accepted for publication and the workshop, symposia, and paper proposals that are accepted for presentation at the midyear meeting.

How should we manage external affairs?

In its issue of December 11, 1953, Collier's magazine announced on its cover “A Test to Help You Figure Out Your Personality.” The corresponding article inside the magazine contained illustrative figure drawings, together with reference to Machover's work and numerous statements about the meaning of various features of the drawings. Understandably aghast, the society appointed an ad hoc committee to assess and comment on this article. There is no subsequent information in the journal's newsletter about the conclusions this committee reached or any actions they took. However this may be, the Collier's event appears to have been a forbear of contemporary concerns about whether the public accessibility of projective test stimuli and information about what the test responses are presumed to show can impair the validity and clinical utility of these personality assessment instruments.

Except for occasional refutation of concerns about public visibility, the society for many years maintained a primarily inward-looking focus, with two notable exceptions. For one, SPA members have been active participants in the International Rorschach Society (IRS, recently renamed the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods) since its inception in 1949, with Sam Beck sitting on its original Executive Committee. Society members have been frequent presenters at the International Society meetings; SPA hosted the 1981 meeting of the International in Washington, under the chairmanship of John Exner, and its 1996 meeting Boston, under the chairmanship of Paul Lerner; and three SPA presidents have also served as IRS president: John Exner (1993–1999), Irving Weiner (1999–2005), and Bruce Smith (2008–2014). The second exception was the Society's previously mentioned arrangements with APA for including an annual SPA program in the APA meeting. These exceptions aside, the Society had traditionally paid scant attention to other APA affairs, to the activities of other external groups, or to matters of public concern.

This isolation ended in 1993, when the Board decided to create an External Relations Committee that would establish lines of communication between the society and such other groups such as ABAP, the APA Practice Directorate, and APA Divisions 1 (General Psychology), 5 (Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics), and 12 (Clinical Psychology). Bruce Smith, who was SPA president in 1997 to 1999, was appointed to chair this External Relations committee and charged with developing its policies and procedures. As an early step in this direction, delegations from the SPA Board began during its fall meeting in Washington to visit the APA building for talks with the Practice and the Educational Directorates, and individual Board members began to seek out their Congressional representatives to discuss with them issues related to personality assessment. Minutes of the 2000 midyear meeting of the Board relate extensive discussion of exploring joint projects with APA, developing and disseminating recommended guidelines for test use, taking the lead in advocating for assessment, and preparing fact sheets about psychological assessment for use in lobbying lawmakers.

The 2003 Board minutes report continuing attention to numerous external actions and involvements. These included the ongoing monitoring of unwarranted and irresponsible criticism of personality assessment in general and Rorschach assessment in particular; attempting to redress deficient education and training of clinical psychology graduate students in personality assessment; promoting increased visibility of SPA and society members in APA activities and events; and sponsoring jointly with the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) a conference on identification and credentialing of core areas of competency in clinical psychology.

As a reflection of this increasing attention to external matters, the Board formally designated Bruce Smith, who had been chairing the External Affairs Committee, as the Society's Assessment Advocacy Coordinator. This position was later renamed Public Affairs Coordinator and then in 2011 Public Affairs Director, with Smith continuing to serve in this capacity. In a related venture, the SPA Board in 2006 created a companion organization, the Society for Personality Assessment Foundation (SPAF). SPAF is a nonprofit organization that can accept and expend charitable contributions. The SPA Board members serve as the Foundation's officers, with the public affairs director serving as its chair, and its meetings are conducted separately from the SPA Board meetings. SPAF is not allowed to participate in the Society's lobbying and advocacy efforts, and its business has consisted mainly of providing student travel and research grants. Currently the SPAF tax-deductible donations are being used to provide 60 student travel grants each year in support of attendance at the Society's annual convention, 30 for U.S. residents and 30 for students from abroad. In addition, 30 grants are available each year to support student research in personality assessment, half of which are intended to facilitate dissertation research.

Finally of note with respect to the Society's engagement in external affairs is an editorial by Steven Huprich in Issue 5 of the 2016 Volume 98 titled, “Psychologists Should Help Curb the Wave of U.S. Gun Violence.” This editorial was the impetus for a symposium on violence prediction at the 2017 midyear meeting of the Society. Such journal and Society events promote increased awareness of the relevance of personality assessment to understanding and confronting the problems of modern society. As noted by Huprich, the SPA and its journal have clearly expanded their focus by taking a formal position on social issues and how personality assessment can be made relevant to them.

A final word

For both the society and its journal, then, it has been a long and interesting history, rarely dull—many questions to answer, many differences of opinion to resolve, many difficult decisions to make. Through it all, the membership has persevered, establishing along the way a respected and smoothly running organization, a prestigious and influential journal, and a sense of enthusiastic participation that is readily apparent in its annual conventions. Society members have made valuable contributions to psychological knowledge, substantially advanced the science and practice of personality assessment, and played key roles in influencing standards and policies for education, training, and credentialing in personality assessment. Let us continue.

Information sources

O'Roark, A. M., & Exner, J. E., Jr. (1989). History and directory: Society for Personality Assessment fiftieth anniversary.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Journal of Personality Assessment, SPA Exchange, and SPA e-newsletter

Society for Personality Assessment Board of Trustees minutes

Society for Personality Assessment Web site

Steven Huprich and Gregory Meyer, Journal of Personality Assessment Editors

Monica Tune, Society for Personality Assessment Administrative Director