James
P. Choca, PhD
Instructor information:
|
Office Location: |
Tower, Room 1857 |
|
Office hours: |
Wednesdays 1-3, Fridays 1-3, Other times by
appointment |
|
Office telephone
number: |
312-341-6380 |
|
Home telephone
number: |
773-472-7791 |
|
Cell: |
312-914-3477 |
Required books:
Exner, J. E. (2003). The
Rorschach: A Comprehensive System (4th ed.), Vol I.
Cramer, P. (1996). Storytelling, narrative, and the
Thematic Apperception Test.
Course Overview:
The course is designed to
teach the administration, scoring and interpretation of the two most popularly
used projective tests, the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT).
The psychometric characteristics of those tests, and how those tests compare to
personality inventories such as the MMPI and the MCMI will be reviewed.
Students will learn how to integrate findings from the projectives with the
person’s history, and with the information from the emotional questionnaires.
The use of computers in doing the diagnostic work will be emphasized.
Course Grade:
The evaluation of the
progress made will be a continuous process. Typically every class will have an
assessment component. In some cases the assessment will be done by means of a
quiz covering the material the student was responsible for reading, or material
presented in class. In other cases the assessments will be made through test
protocols given to the student to be scored and/or interpreted. Case write-ups
that students submit will also be counted as part of the weekly assessment.
There will be frequent feedback of test performance. All students will take
part in one of three debates, or do a class presentation of one of the minor
projective tests. The student performance on the debate or presentation will
contribute 20 points toward the final grade.
The Great Debates:
For the Great Debates, each student will choose a side. In collaboration with the other students representing the same side, the student needs to research the chosen side so as to be able to present arguments in a scientifically convincing manner. Appeal to authority is good, a well-reasoned opinion is better, presentation of supporting data (tables, graphs, numbers that prove a point) is best. Which of the two sides goes first is decided before-hand by mutual agreement, or by the toss of a coin. Each side will have 20 minutes for their initial presentation, to be followed by up to 5 minutes for rebuttal. The debate will then be open to the rest of the class.
Both
the form of the presentation and the substance will be rated. The student will
be rated mostly on the basis of his or her own presentation, but may receive
credit for a group effort if the debating team has assigned different tasks to
the different team members. For example, one person may be designated to
present all of the data in support of an argument, and the other members of the
team may obtain credit for that part of the presentation. In order to have this
rule apply, the team needs to make clear how the work was divided, and who
deserves the credit. The ratings will be assigned taking the following into
account:
|
FORM OF THE
PRESENTATION |
|
Speaks
clearly and loud enough for everyone to hear |
|
Pronounces
clearly so everyone can understand |
|
Keeps
a good pace in the presentation |
|
Does
NOT read from notes |
|
Uses
charts or visual aids |
|
Does
not apologize for doing or not doing something |
|
Presents
view in a succinct manner |
|
Appears
interested or enthusiastic about the material presented |
|
Appears
committed to his or her side |
|
Makes
the debate interesting to others |
|
SUBSTANCE |
|
Presents
an argument for his or her side |
|
Presents
another argument |
|
Presents
a third argument |
|
Presents
more than three arguments |
|
Presents
data in support of an argument |
|
Presents
data in support of another argument |
|
Rebuts
with relevant new material that addresses points made by the opposition |
|
Rebuts
with more than one relevant new point that addresses points made by the
opposition |
|
Spends
less than 1 minute on issues that have little to do with the debate |
|
Spends
less than 3 minutes on issues that have little to do with the debate |
Test Presentations:
Students will have a choice between presenting one of the ‘minor’ projective tests to be covered, or presenting a case. Those responsible for a minor test need to review the test manual, examine any critiques that are available on the test (e.g., in Buros’ Mental Measurement Yearbook), and search for the important papers or books available on that instrument. The student performance will be rated in accordance to the following criteria:
|
FORM OF THE
PRESENTATION |
|
Speaks
clearly and loud enough for everyone to hear |
|
Pronounces
clearly so everyone can understand |
|
Keeps
a good pace in the presentation |
|
Does
NOT read from notes |
|
Uses
charts or visual aids |
|
Does
not apologize for doing or not doing something |
|
Presents
view in a succinct manner |
|
Appears
interested or enthusiastic about the material presented |
|
Appears
committed to what the evaluation has to offer |
|
Makes
presentation interesting to others |
|
SUBSTANCE |
|
Presents
an overview of the test |
|
Offers
details about the test scales |
|
Discusses
the validity and reliability of the instrument |
|
Presents
a case example of how the test is used |
|
Speaks
of the research that has been done with the instrument |
|
Discusses
the advantages or strengths of the tool |
|
Discusses
disadvantages or limitations of the tool |
|
Responds
to questions in an informative manner |
|
Does
not offer an idea that is blatantly wrong or irrelevant |
|
Does
not offer more than one idea that is blatantly wrong or irrelevant |
Attendance:
This is a professional
course for students who want an opportunity to train as psychologists. Students are expected to attend all of the
classes. With some exceptions, if there are other aspects of the student’s life
that have priority at the time this course is taught, the student probably does
not belong in this class.
Religious holidays:
Following University policy,
students who wish to observe religious holidays must inform the instructor
within the first 2 weeks of the beginning of the semester of their intent to
observe the holiday so that alternative arrangements can be made. Students who
do not arrange for excused absences by the deadline are not entitled to such
accommodations.
Academic Dishonesty:
All students will be held
to the University’s standards regarding academic dishonesty. These standards
are described in the Student Handbook and on the University’s website.
Ignorance of standards will not be accepted as an excuse. In particular for
this course, all test administration protocols, test scores, and test reports,
must have been done by the student.
Although the student may use books and other resources to do the work,
the final product must be the student’s individual effort. Students found
guilty of academic dishonesty will receive an F for the course, and their names
will be forwarded to the Student Services Office. Receiving an F for the course
does not preclude imposition of other penalties by the University, including dismissal.
Instructions
for Hemann:
|
To
run |
1. Create a
directory on your hard drive called HRM 2. Copy all of
the files in the disk to the HRM directory (see instructions below) 3. Run the file
called Hermann6.exe (you can create a shortcut to this
file and put it on your desktop to make the process easier in the future) |
|
Configuring |
Hermann will have to be configured
with your name, and the drive/directory where the data files will be kept. In
order to configure Hermann: 1. Run the program following the
instructions given in the section above 2. Enter a backslash \ instead of the
patient's name and press enter 3. Enter the drive and directory you
are going to use to store the cases
(e.g., a: or c:\HRM) 4. Enter your last name, first name,
middle initial and degree in response to queries 5. Enter 10 for the number of minutes
after which it should save 6. Enter 1 to set the color display For Hermann to be able to read the
case files, those files have to be copied into the drive and directory you
entered in step #3 above |
|
To
copy files |
1. Click right
mouse button on Start, then Explore 2. On the left
side, click floppy drive A 3. Click any
file on the right side when the names appear (top select all files enter
Ctrl-A) 4. Drag to the
HRM directory on the left side |
|
Operations
at
a glance |
·
You can find a Word copy of the manual on the disk ·
Use Esc to switch between the text and the score box ·
PageDown takes you to the next response, PageUp to the previous ·
Ctrl-PageDown takes you to the next card ·
Enter scores one at a time, even the S (to enter WS you
enter W first and then S, to enter Ma, enter M and then a) ·
Enter a number in the score box to change the card number ·
Use – for a – Developmental Quality, _ (shift-) for a –
Form Quality ·
Use = for a + Developmental Quality, + (shift=) for a +
Form Quality ·
Use periods to create blends (eg., FM.FC) |
DATE |
ASSIGNMENT |
CLASS COVERAGE |
|
1/28 |
|
Introduction
to the course Administering
the Rorschach Hermann, the
Rorschach Assistant |
|
2/4 |
Exner, chapters 1-4 |
Student ethics History
of the Rorschach Fundamentals
of Scoring |
|
2/11 |
Exner,
chapters 5-7 First
Rorschach administration |
Scoring
continues |
|
2/18 |
Exner,
chapters 8-10 Second
Rorschach administration Score assigned
case |
Scoring continues |
|
2/25 |
Exner
Chapter 11-13 Third
Rorschach administration Score
assigned cases |
Scoring
continues *Holtzman
Inkblot Test |
|
3/3 |
Exner,
chapters 14-15 |
*Great
Debates in Psychology: Are projective personality tests
valid and reliable? Scoring
Continues |
|
3/10 |
Exner,
chapters 16-17 Score
assigned cases |
Fundamentals
of Interpretation *Hand
Test |
|
3/17 |
Spring
Break |
|
|
3/24 |
Exner,
chapters 18-20 Interpret
assigned case |
Interpretation continues *House-Tree-Person Test |
|
3/31 |
Exner,
chapters 21-22 Interpret
assigned case |
SPA
– Sarah Michelson to cover *Great
Debates in Psychology: Projective personality tests versus personality questionnaires *Great
Debates in Psychology: Science
versus art / Beck versus Klopfer *Sentence
Completion Tests |
|
4/7 |
Teglasi,
chapters 1-2 Score and
Interpret case |
Introduction
to the TAT |
|
4/14 |
Teglasi, chapters 3-4 Score and
Interpret cases |
Interpretation
of the TAT Writing
reports |
|
4/21 |
Teglasi, chapters 5-6 First
TAT administration |
Case
presentations *The
Children’s Apperception Test (CAT) |
|
4/28 |
Teglasi, chapters 7-8 Second TAT
administration Score,
interpret and write cases |
Individual
differences and performance personality tests Case
presentations *The
Senior Apperception Test |
|
5/5 |
Teglasi,
chapters 9-10 Third TAT
administration Score,
interpret and write case |
Integrating
self-report and performance instruments Case
presentations |
|
5/12 |
Ethic
readings Score,
interpret and write case |
Ethical
standards in testing |
*Denotes
that students are responsible for this activity