No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Recently, the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R–PAS; Meyer, Viglione, Mihura, Erard, & Erdberg, 2011 Meyer, G. J., Viglione, D. J., Mihura, J. L., Erard, R. E., & Erdberg, P. (2011). A manual for the Rorschach Performance Assessment System. Toledo, OH: R–PAS. [Google Scholar]) was introduced to overcome some possible limitations of the Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 2003 Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Vol. 1: Basic foundations and principles of interpretation (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [Google Scholar]) while continuing its efforts to link Rorschach inferences to their evidence base. An important, technical modification to the scoring system is that R–PAS interpretations are based on both standard scores and complexity-adjusted scores. Two previous U.S. studies reported good to excellent interrater reliability (IRR) for the great majority of R–PAS variables; however, IRR of complexity-adjusted scores has never been investigated. Furthermore, no studies have yet investigated R–PAS IRR in Europe. To extend this literature, we examined R–PAS IRR of Page 1 and Page 2 raw and complexity-adjusted scores with 112 Italian Rorschach protocols. We collected a large sample of both clinical and nonclinical Rorschach protocols, each of which was coded separately by 2 independent raters. Results demonstrated a mean intraclass correlation of .78 (SD = .14) for raw scores and.74 (SD = .14) for complexity-adjusted scores. Overall, for both raw and complexity-adjusted values, most of the variables were characterized by good to excellent IRR.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.