The Centrality of the Response Process in Construct Validity: An Illustration via the Rorschach Space Response

ABSTRACT

Recently, psychologists have emphasized the response process—that is, the psychological operations and behaviors that lead to test scores—when designing psychological tests, interpreting their results, and refining their validity. To illustrate the centrality of the response process in construct validity and test interpretation, we provide a historical, conceptual, and empirical review of the main uses of the background white space of the Rorschach cards, called space reversal (SR) and space integration (SI) in the Rorschach Performance Assessment System. We show how SR and SI's unique response processes result in different interpretations, and that reviewing their literatures with these distinct interpretations in mind produces the expected patterns of convergent and discriminant validity. That is, SR was uniquely related to measures of oppositionality; SI was uniquely related to measures of cognitive complexity; and both SR and SI were related to measures of creativity. Our review further suggests that the Comprehensive System use of a single space code for all uses of white space likely led to its lack of meta-analytic support as a measure of oppositionality (Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, & Bombel, 2013). We close by discussing the use of the response process to improve test interpretation, develop better measures, and advance the design of research.

Disclosure

Joni L. Mihura and Gregory J. Meyer receive royalties from a Rorschach test manual (Meyer, Viglione, Mihura, Erard, & Erdberg, 2011) and associated products.

Notes

¹ In Exner (1969a), the Pair means were 1.95 and 2.61 (SDs = 1.32 and 1.56), which are notably lower than nonpatient means using the standard CS coding guidelines: Exner (1974) = 7.3 (no SD given), Exner (2003) = 8.52 (SD = 2.18), and Exner (2007) = 8.82 (SD = 3.08).

² At the time Exner wrote this article, homosexuality was theoretically due to autoeroticism or narcissism (see Exner, 1969a).

³ Joni L. Hollrah is the same person as the first author, Joni L. Mihura.

⁴ On the other hand, subtle items exist for which the link to the scale's construct becomes clear after reflection, and are therefore less likely to be error. For example, although it might not be obvious to a layperson how answering false to “I like to flirt” belongs on MMPI Scale 2 (Depression), with just a little reflection a psychologist could connect this experience with the loss of libido seen in depressed patients.

⁵ Exner (2003) also used the term response process, but targeting the more general processes that occur when responding to the Rorschach task of “What might this be?” such as scanning, identifying, discarding, and selecting responses.

⁶ k = number of findings.

⁷ Schizophrenic negativism is not the same as negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

⁸ Bleuler's (1911/1950) concept of negativism was not linked with the physical aggression that many Rorschach authors have associated with oppositionality, and which resulted in studies exploring the relationship between Space and aggression, violence, and psychopathy (see Mihura et al., 2013, p. 593).

⁹ Space Integration responses outnumber Space Reversal responses almost 3:1 (M = 2.8 vs. 1.1; Meyer et al., 2011, p. 310).

¹⁰ To be consistent with Exner's (2003) interpretation of the Space response, Mihura et al.’s (2013) meta-analytic criteria for CS Space included conduct disorder, psychopathy, and physical aggression; however, as previously noted, this is not consistent with R–PAS's view of SR's response process interpretation.

¹¹ We included two articles (Bandura, 1954a; Stein, 1973) that used a Space variable that combined SR and SI responses because the methodology purposefully weighted the SR response heavily.

¹² We report these exclusions in detail because they have been included in previous Space reviews.

¹³ As described in Bandura's (1952) dissertation, in Bandura (1954a) “negativism” was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from “Stubborn and resistive, refuses to do things unless forced” at the high end to “Accepts discipline and orders without hesitation, docile and compliant” (p. 81) at the low end.

¹⁴ For Stein (1973), oppositionality was rated on three 7-point semantic differential scales with endpoints of cooperative–stubborn, agreeable–oppositional, and acquiescent–contrary.

¹⁵ As described in Bandura's dissertation, in Bandura (1954a) “assertiveness” was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from “Insistent in making his opinions known, tries to do all of the talking, tends to force his views” to “Quiet and submissive, rarely or never asks questions or volunteers comments” (p. 81).