On the Decline of Projective Techniques in

Professional Psychology Training

Chris Piotrowski
University of West Florida

Instructional emphasis with projective methods has been an enduring and

enigmatic feature of assessment training in professional and clinical
psychology for the past 75 years. However, over the past decade, there
has been diminishing instructional emphasis on individual projective
methods in both academic and internship training. The purpose of this
commentary is to provide an expository perspective on this evident
decline in graduate-level educational opportunities regarding projective
assessment. From data-based survey studies and extensive reviews by
both critics and proponents of projective techniques, the author argues
that the demise of projective assessment in clinical training can be
attributed to several key factors, i.e., managed care policies, emerging
constraints in the professional psychology curriculum, journal-editorial
preference, and limited number of scholarly rebuttals (e.g., Dana, 2014;
Mihura et al. 2015), to perennial critical reviews of specific projective
techniques in the literature. However, the conclusions, based on these
central issues, apply only to clinical psychology training in the USA as
the status of projective assessment continues to flourish in both academic
and applied settings throughout the world (Piotrowski, 2015).

With the advent of the new millennium, survey findings confirmed a

high degree of educational emphasis with projective techniques in both
clinical/professional psychology programs and internship settings (Belter
& Piotrowski, 2001; Childs & Eyde, 2002; Meyer et al., 2001; Mihura &
Weinle, 2002). However, more recent survey data, on the extent of
training emphasis in assessment in graduate professional training
programs, point to a precipitous decline in instruction with projective
techniques within the last 5 years (Neukrug et al., 2013). In fact, Ready
and Veague (2014), in a survey of APA-accredited programs regarding
training in assessment, found that no projective methods were ranked in
the top 10 most popular tests. These findings clearly indicate a very
recent de-emphasis in graduate-level instruction with projective
techniques. At the same time, extensive review of studies of applied
settings indicate that projective techniques continue to be relied upon and
considered a valuable clinical tool by practicing psychologists. For
example, Piotrowski (2015), in an analysis of 28 survey-based studies
_______________________________
Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Chris Piotrowski, Research
Consultant, University of West Florida. E-mail: cpiotrowski@uwf.edu
North American Journal of Psychology, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 2, 259-266.
NAJP
260 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

worldwide, reported that at least one projective test was noted among the
top 5 tests used in practice in 50% of these reports. Additionally, the
Rorschach, H-F-Ds, sentence completion methods, and the TAT were
ranked among the top 15 tests in all but 3 of these 28 studies. Despite
these disparate findings of training versus practice settings, bibliometric
analysis of the recent psychological literature (conducted in the database
PsycINFO) reveals a total of 2,943 references on projective techniques,
including 1,746 articles in academic and professional journals (from
2008-2012). Thus, what could account for this apparent moribund state
with regard to the rapid decline in educational emphasis with projective
assessment in clinical/professional training programs? This commentary
aims to discuss several pedagogic, editorial preference, critical review,
and professional practice factors that can be attributed to the diminutive
status of projective techniques in professional graduate-level instruction.

Managed Care Policy

By the mid-1990s, changes in mental health care policies had a
profound impact on professional psychology practice (Phelps et al.,
1998). The untoward effect was that reimbursement and time constraints
significantly impacted the extent and availability of psychological
testing, particularly reliance on traditional assessment batteries (Wood et
al., 2002). Research has shown a stark shift in focus on brief and short-
form testing instruments, with a concomitant decrease in the clinical use
of projective techniques (Piotrowski, 1999; Stedman et al., 2001). Most
projective tests are individually administered and, moreover, protocol
scoring, interpretation, and assessment report integration can be rather
time-consuming for the clinician. Thus, faculty members responsible for
clinical training in assessment have gradually shifted away from tests that
do not meet a time-sensitive threshold in practice. With the exception of
specialty-based practice such as forensic assessment (Weiner & Otto,
2013), restrictive mental health administrative policies have limited
authorized clinical use of projective assessment over the past 20 years.

Professional Psychology Curriculum

At the turn of the century, studies of APA-accredited professional
doctoral training programs revealed that projective testing was a major
required clinical competency, although training emphasis in this area was
expected to decline in the near future (Belter & Piotrowski, 2001; Cashel,
2002; Handler & Smith, 2013). At the same time, attitudes toward
projective tests by directors of internship training were relatively positive
and opportunities for advanced training on select projective tests was an
expected function of the internship experience (Piotrowski & Belter,
1999; Stedman et al., 2002). However, in 2000, the APA Division 12
 Piotrowski DECLINE OF PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES 261

Task Force on Assessment recommended that training in projective

assessment methods should be excluded from the graduate clinical
curriculum (see Lilienfeld et al., 2000 for discussion). Interestingly,
about this time, several authors called for a moratorium on teaching
projective tests (Wood et al., 2003). In addition to these headwinds,
projective tests have long competed with emerging clinical areas of
interest and specialty emphasis in the ever-crowded doctoral
curriculum, most aptly noted by Silverstein (1996) ..clinical
psychology programs have become increasingly specialized, partly
resulting from pressures to provide training in skills that prepare students
for subsequent clinical positions (p. 356). Undoubtedly, high variability
in training models of clinical psychology programs have contributed to
modifications in training emphasis and competency standards (see
Cherry et al., 2000). Sadly, current concerns on differential preparation
of students from PsyD versus PhD professional psychology programs
neglect to discuss assessment training (e.g., Graham & Kim, 2011).
Furthermore, articles on instructional issues related to projective methods
rarely appear in the recent clinical training literature (see Callahan, 2015
as an exception).
These noted trends in education have subsequently led to diminished
emphasis on projective techniques in academic and internship settings
(Hunt & Wisocki, 2008; Ready & Veague, 2014; Stedman et al., 2013).
For students, this loss of educational opportunities for advanced training
on specific projective methods has been compounded by faculty
disinterest in clinical conceptualization based on projective assessment
formulations and theory. As older faculty retire and eventually leave the
scene, educational training and competency with projective techniques
will only be available through extra-program opportunities such as
workshops.

Journal-Editorial Emphasis
While several scholarly journals continue to focus on test validity
issues and introductions of new testing instruments, studies on training
issues in psychological testing rarely appear in the professional literature.
This was not the case during the hallmark years of assessment (1960-
1990) when articles on the educational, practica, and internship aspects
of assessment permeated the literature in publications like Journal of
Clinical Psychology, Professional Psychology, and Journal of
Personality Assessment (e.g., Piotrowski & Zalewski, 1993). Quite
revealing, the APA-sponsored journal Training and Education in
Professional Psychology provides scant attention to critical issues
dealing with testing/assessment (e.g., Callahan, 2015; Hilsenroth et al.,
2007). Obviously, it is difficult to determine the role of editorial policies
262 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

or investigatory disinterest in this dearth of research interest in

assessment training. However, recent commentaries have prompted
discussion on the topic of editorial influence regarding journal subject
matter inclusion (e.g., Krell, 2010). Perhaps, preferential views reflected
in the editorial review process have had an incremental and detrimental
impact on the publication of research studies and policy-based papers
regarding training in projective techniques.

Critical Literature Reviews

Over the past 75 years, projective testing has had its share of both
proponents and opponents (Bram & Peebles, 2014). Even into the 1990s,
academic psychologists engaged in lively discussion and heated debate
about the role of not only psychological testing in the clinical and
counseling curriculum but also the efficacy of traditional training models
(Craig, 1990, 1992). It was not until the mid-1990s that an onslaught of
hardened opposition to the use and educational emphasis on projective
techniques emerged from many quarters (Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld, &
Nezworski, 2002; Wood, Nezworski, & Stejskal, 1996). In support of
these rather condescending appraisals, extensive reviews of the literature
seem to support the position that the psychometric properties of
projective techniques have been suspect (see Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb,
2000). In their monograph, Lilienfeld et al. concluded that the substantial
majority of Rorschach and TAT indexes are not empirically supported,
and that validity evidence for human figure drawing techniques is even
more limited.

Does projective assessment have a future in Psychology?

Projective testing seems to have led a bifurcated existence over the
past decade, i.e., attitudes toward projective tests have been blatantly
negative in professional training settings yet guardedly positive in
clinical practice (Hardwood et al., 2011). However, very recent survey
data seem to indicate a rather precipitous decline in practitioner reliance
on projective assessment across a variety of mental health settings (see
Neukrug et al., 2013). At the same time, despite recent scholarly rebuttals
to the avalanche of criticisms leveled at projective methods (see Mihura
et al., 2015), the probability of changing the minds of skeptics is rather
doubtful. Finally, it must be noted that it is unclear how recent attention
in the assessment field devoted to empirically-validated testing will
impact assessment practices and training (Beck et al., 2014; Youngstrom
et al., 2015); such perspectives can only limit the overall use of
projective techniques.
Thus, based on the current professional sentiment toward projective
techniques, I offer the following predictions: a) academic/internship
 Piotrowski DECLINE OF PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES 263

coverage of projective assessment will become non-existent in clinical

psychology training in the USA and selectively emphasized in school
psychology programs; b) projective tests will continue to be part of the
assessment armamentarium in a small minority of mental health settings
in the USA, and c) attitudes toward and use of projective assessment will
remain in high regard overseas, at select universities and in professional
practice across many nations around the worldthis is based on reviews
of survey studies (Piotrowski, 2015) and unpublished reports from
countries like Japan and Peru. Thus, proponents of projective methods
will become a rare, but not dying breed.

REFERENCES
Beck, J.G., Castonguay, L.G., Chronis-Tuscano, A., Klonsky, E.D., McGinn,
L.K., & Youngstrom, E.A. (2014). Principles for training in evidenced-based
psychology: Recommendations for the graduate curricula in clinical
psychology. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 21, 410-424.
Belter, R.W., & Piotrowski, C. (2001). Current status of doctoral-level training
in psychological testing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 717-726.
Bram, A.D., & Peebles, M.J. (2014). Psychological testing that matters.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Callahan, J.L. (2015). Evidenced-based technical skills training in pre-practicum
psychological assessment. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 9, 21-27.
Cashel, M. L. (2002). Child and adolescent psychological assessment.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 446-453.
Cherry, D.K., & Messenger, L.C., & Jacoby, A.M. (2000). An examination of
training model outcomes in clinical psychology programs. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 562-568.
Childs, R., & Eyde, L. (2002). Assessment training in clinical psychology
doctoral programs: What should we teach? What do we teach? Journal of
Personality Assessment, 78, 130-144.
Craig, R.J. (1992). On the rocks (Boulder) and under cover (Vail): Models of
training and psychodiagnostic assessment. Journal of Training & Practice in
Professional Psychology, 6(1), 7-13.
Craig, R.J., & Horowitz, M. (1990). Current utilization of psychological tests at
diagnostic practicum sites. The Clinical Psychologist, 43, 29-36.
Dana, R.H. (2014). Personality tests and psychological science: Instruments,
populations, practice. In F.T. Leong et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of
multicultural psychology, Vol. 2: Applications and training (pp. 181-196).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Garb, H.N., Wood, J.M., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Nezworski, M.T. (2002). Effective
use of projective techniques in clinical practice: Let the data help with
selection and interpretation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
33, 454-463.
264 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Graham, J.M., & Kim, Y. (2011). Predictors of doctoral student success in

professional psychology: Characteristics of students, programs, and
universities. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 340-354.
Handler, L., & Smith, J.D. (2013). Education and training in psychological
assessment. In J.R. Graham, J.A. Naglieri, & I.B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology, Vol. 10: Assessment psychology (2nd ed., pp. 211-238). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Harwood, T.M., Beutler, L.E., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2011). Integrative
assessment of adult personality (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Hilsenroth, M., Charnas, J.W., Zodan, J., & Streiner, D.L. (2007). Criterion-
based training for Rorschach scoring. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 1(2), 125-134.
Hunt, S.L., & Wisocki, P.A. (2008). Balancing science and practice in clinical
psychology training programs: A survey of training directors. Behavior
Therapist, 31(5), 91-96.
Krell, F.T. (2010). Should editors influence journal impact factors? Learned
Publishing, 23(1), 59-62.
Lilienfeld, S.O., Wood, J.M., & Garb, H.N. (2000). The scientific status of
projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1(2), 27-
66.
Meyer. G.J., Finn, S.E., Eyde, L.D, et al. (2001). Psychological testing and
psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American
Psychologist, 56(2), 128-165.
Mihura, J.L., Meyer, G.J., Bombel, G., & Dumitrascu, N. (2015). Standards,
accuracy, and questions of bias in Rorschach meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin, 141, 250-260.
Mihura, J.L., & Weinle, C.A. (2002). Rorschach training: Doctoral students
experiences and preferences. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79, 39-52.
Neukrug, E., Peterson, C.H., Bonner, M., & Lomas, G. (2013). A national survey
of assessment instruments taught by counselor educators. Counselor
Education & Supervision, 52, 207-221.
Phelps. R., Eisman, E.J., & Kohout, J. (1998). Psychological practice and
managed care: Results of the CAPP practitioner survey. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 31-36.
Piotrowski, C. (2015). Projective techniques usage worldwide: A review of
applied settings 1995-2015. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied
Psychology, 41(3), 9-19.
Piotrowski, C. (1999). Assessment practices in the era of managed care: Current
status and future directions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(7), 787-796.
Piotrowski, C., & Belter, R.W. (1999). Internship training in psychological
assessment: Has managed care had an impact? Assessment, 6(4), 381-389.
Piotrowski, C., & Zalewski, C. (1993). Training in psychodiagnostic testing in
APA-Approved PsyD and PhD clinical psychology programs. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 61(2), 394-405.
Ready, R.E., & Veague, H.B. (2014). Training in psychological assessment:
Current practices of clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 45, 278-282.
 Piotrowski DECLINE OF PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES 265

Silverstein, M.L. (1996). Teaching the Rorschach and learning psychodiagnostic

testing. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 355-362.
Stedman, J.M., Hatch, J.P., & Schoenfeld, L.S. (2002). Pre-internship preparation
of clinical and counseling students in psychological testing, psychotherapy,
and supervision. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 9, 267-
271.
Stedman, J.M., Hatch, J.P., & Schoenfeld, L.S. (2001). The current status of
psychological assessment training in graduate and professional schools.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(3), 398-407.
Stedman, J.M., Schoenfeld, L.S., & ODonnell, L. (2013). An investigation of
internship directors perspectives on the learning objectives required by the
Commission on Accreditation. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 7(2), 134-138.
Weiner, I.B., & Otto, R.K. (2013). Handbook of forensic psychology (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Wood, J.M., Garb, H.N., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Nezworski, M.T. (2002). Clinical
assessment. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 519-543.
Wood, J.M., Nezworski, T.M., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Garb, H.N. (2003). Whats
wrong with the Rorschach? Science confronts the controversial inkblot test.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wood, J.M., Nezworski, M.T., & Stejskal, W.J. (1996). The Comprehensive
System for the Rorschach: A critical examination. Psychological Science, 7,
3-10.
Youngstrom, E.A., Choukas-Bradley, S., Calhoun, C.D., & Jensen-Doss, A.
(2015). Clinical guide to the evidence-based assessment approach to
diagnosis and treatment. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 22(1), 20-35.
266 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY