On the science of Rorschach research

I describe problems in an article by Wood, Nezworski, Stejskal, Garven, and West (1999b). These include (a) claims that researchers found or said thin gs they did not, (b) an assertion that my data did not support the incremen tal validity of the Rorschach over the MMPI-2 when the opposite was true, ( c) complications with their recommended incremental validity procedures, (d ) unwarranted criticism of Burns and Viglione's (1996) statistical analyses , (e) oversimplifying issues associated with extreme groups research, (f) m isleading criticisms of composite measures, and (g) faulty criticisms of Bu rns and Viglione's composite scale that overlooked relevant evidence. Wood et al. also asserted that Burns and Viglione's primary Rorschach variable w as faulty and created a formula that seemed to show how Bums and Viglione's scores were "incompatible" and "not... even very close" to those obtained from the proper formula. These criticisms were made even though Wood et al. had been told that their formula was incorrect and shown that it was almos t perfectly correlated with the proper formula in 8 large samples (rs > .99 8). Sound criticism of Rorschach research will advance science and practice , but the Wood ct al. article did not provide sufficient guidance.