Content area
Full Text
It is an interesting observation that of all the assessment methods, Projective Techniques seem to attract the predominance of rather heated criticism from the academic community (see Lilienfeld, 2000, for review). These criticisms center on lack of psychometric credibility, with the conclusion that such measures should not be used in clinical practice or in graduate training (Benson et al., 2019). In order to provide an objective evaluation regarding this onslaught of scholarly attacks, it would be informative to study the issue based on an objective analysis backed by data from scientific publications. One avenue to such an analysis is to conduct an empirically based bibliometric review of the extant literature (not on pro or con arguments) with a focus on actual use of and reliance on measures/tests by researchers which comprise investigatory designs reported in scholarly research. Such a study of the extant literature should provide a lucid picture regarding the utility of projective measures/assessment in the mental health field, across both basic and applied research.
Historically, several studies have reported on research trends regarding select projective techniques. Sundberg (1954), in an analysis of references citations in the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMY), found that the Rorschach and TAT ranked among the top 4 cited psychological tests from 19371951. Reynolds and Sundberg (1976) extended this analysis of the MMY through 1971 and reported that references for the Rorschach and TAT were actually increasing from 1940-1971. However, Polyson and colleagues (1985, 1986), in a bibliometric analysis of PsycINFO, found that through the mid-1980s, the volume of references on the TAT was declining whereas citations for the Rorschach saw a resurgence in the published research literature. Thus, a more updated bibliographic analysis of projective tests seems prudent.
To that end, I report the results of a bibliometric exercise based on a Keyword search of specific...