Está en la página 1de 7

Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(S1), S142S148

Copyright C 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.


ISSN: 0022-3891 print / 1532-7752 online
DOI: 10.1080/00223890701583648

Rorschach Comprehensive System Data for a Sample of 111 Adult


Nonpatients From Romania
NICOLAE DUMITRASCU

Department of Psychology, University of Toledo

In this study Rorschach data from a Romanian sample of 111 respondents was collected and analyzed in a first attempt to establish national
norms. The protocols were collected in a 5-year period (20022006) by the author. Interrater reliability statistics are presented for a sample of 20
cases, along with scores for the Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 1993). These results can be used for cross-cultural comparisons of
the CS.

There is substantial evidence that the Rorschach inkblot test is Primary Language: All subjects spoke Romanian as their
not affected by cultural differences, especially in Westernized primary language.
countries, primarily because the stimuli bear much resemblance
to objects commonly encountered in daily life, irrespective of Education: The level of education in this sample was 48
cultural space (e.g., people, bats, butterflies, bears, etc.; Ritzler, years for 5 participants (4.5%),
2001, 2004). Other studies, however, document cultural differ- 1012 years for 46 participants (43.2%), and 13+ years for 58
ences in form level as well as in popular responses (Weiner, participants (52.3%). In Romania, the typical forms of education
1998). This is important, as such factors can alter the interpre- consist of 8 years of primary and secondary school, followed by
tation of the protocols and, in extreme cases, may render them either 2 years of professional school or 4 years of high school.1
invalid. For students pursuing a college degree, the typical duration
Studies that develop norms for various cultures are therefore of the studies is 4 years (or 5 years for the generations that
much needed to further validate this instrument. The goal of the graduated before 1997).
current study was to collect Rorschach Comprehensive System
(CS; Exner, 2003) data from a sample of Romanian people. To Marital Status: As seen in the upper portion of Table 1,
my knowledge, this is the first attempt to norm the Rorschach 70 participants (63.1%) are married, 35 (31.5%) are single, 4
on a Romanian population. (3.6%) are divorced, and 2 are widowed (1.8%).

METHOD Economic Status: This information was not inquired. A


Participants gross estimation can be made about most of the participants,
however, based on their professional position, level of education,
Basic sample description. The current study used data and self-disclosure data during the interview. According to this
collected from 111 Romanian nonpatients adult participants estimation, 40 participants (36%) have a low socioeconomic
who were assessed during 20022006 for research and pro- level, 40 (36%) have probably a middle level, and 31 (28%)
fessional purposes. The sample consisted of 79 research vol- have a high economic status.
unteers (71.2%) and 32 managers (28.8%). Fifty-one research
volunteers (45.9%) were paid the equivalent of U.S $7 for their Occupation: The participants held a wide range of jobs and
participation. Almost all participants lived in urban areas; most occupations, from unskilled workers to undergraduate students
of them (76%) lived in Bucharest or in the surrounding areas. and top managers in large companies.
Basic demographic information.
Student Status: College students made up 14.4% of the
Gender: The sample consists of 47 males (42.3%) and 64 participants, almost all of them undergraduate.
females (57.7%).
Psychiatric characteristics of the sample.
Age: The participants mean age was 38.26 (SD = 11.64),
with a range from 18 to 62. Lifetime History: No participant in the study had a psychi-
atric history. Also, none of them reported having been arrested
Ethnicity: All participants are Romanian native and were
or having had serious legal problems.
raised in Romania.
Current State: Detailed information was not obtained.
Received January 22, 2007; Revised April 1, 2007
Address correspondence to Nicolae Dumitrascu, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Mail Stop 948, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606; Email: 1 For the high school students enrolled in the education program, the duration

nicolae dumitrascu@hotmail.com of the training is 5 years.

S142
ROMANIAN ADULT NONPATIENTS S143

TABLE 1.Frequencies for 111 nonpatient adults from Romania. Participant Recruitment
Demography Variables Specific strategies to find and screen participants. As
Marital Status Age mentioned above, the sample is composed of two subgroups:
Single 35 31.5% 1825 18 17.1% 79 research volunteers (71.2%), and 32 managers (28.8%) (see
Lives w/S.O. 0 0% 2635 28 25.2%
Married 70 63.1% 3645 21 20.8%
Table 2). The research volunteers were recruited from three
Separated 0 0% 4655 36 31.5% settings. Fifty-one participants (45.9%) were selected from the
Divorced 4 3.6% 5665 6 5.4% database of a marketing research company in Bucharest. They
Widowed 2 1.8% Over 65 0 20% were paid $7 for their participation. Seventeen participants
Unlisted 0 0% (15.3%) were college students who were recruited through ads
Education
Sex Under 12 31 27.9% posted in several locations at the Titu Maiorescu University in
Male 47 42.3% 12 Years 22 19.8% Bucharest. The ads asked people to take part in a psycholog-
Female 64 57.7% 1315 Yrs 11 9.9% ical study. Eleven participants (9.9%) were selected from the
16+ Yrs 47 42.4% personnel of an auto service company in Bucharest. They con-
Race
White 111 100%
sented to participate to the study at their chiefs suggestion. All
research volunteers were selected as a control group for a study
Ratios, Percentages, and Special Indices
Styles Form Quality Deviations
on psychological factors affecting a medical condition. This un-
Introversive 20 18% XA% > .89 21 19% published study included an experimental group of inpatients
Pervasive Introversive 12 11% XA% < .70 11 10% with skin disorders and has as a goal identifying psychologi-
Ambitent 25 23% WDA% < .85 55 50% cal qualities (personality traits, self-image, coping mechanisms)
Extratensive 18 16% WDA% < .75 15 14% that may be characteristic of them.
Pervasive Extratensive 7 6% X+% < .55 51 46%
Avoidant 48 43% Xu% > .20 77 69% All research volunteers were told that they would participate
X% > .20 43 39% in a study concerning the effects of stress on health and that
X% > .30 8 7% they would be asked to respond to some questionnaires on how
D-Scores they think and feel in various life situations. No one was told
D Score > 0 13 12% FC:CF+C Ratio specifically that he or she would be administered the Rorschach
D Score = 0 59 53% FC > (CF+C) + 2 7 6% test.
D Score < 0 39 35% FC > (CF+C) + 1 12 11% The second group of participants consists of 32 top-level man-
D Score < 1 21 19% (CF+C) > FC+1 49 44%
Adj D Score > 0 26 23% (CF+C) > FC+2 30 27% agers in two large national industrial companies. The Rorschach
Adj D Score = 0 59 53% was administered to them as a part of a routine personality as-
Adj D Score < 0 26 23% S-Constellation Positive 5 5% sessment required by their human resources (HR) department.
Adj D Score < 1 11 10% HVI Positive 12 11% Both the participants and the HR department gave their consent
OBS Positive 1 1%
Zd > +3.0 (Overincorp) 14 13%
to use the data for scientific purposes, on the condition of total
Zd < 3.0 (Underincorp) 44 40% confidentiality regarding the participants and the companies.
There is a series of differences between the group of re-
PTI = 5 0 0%DEPI = 7 1 1% CDI = 5 14 13% search volunteers and of managers that could have influenced
PTI = 4 0 0%DEPI = 6 6 5% CDI = 4 25 23% the Rorschach performance. The first one refers to the response
PTI = 3 5 5%DEPI = 5 19 17%
set in the testing session: the research volunteers probably oper-
Miscellaneous Variables
R < 17 34 31% (2AB+Art+Ay) > 5 9 8%
ated under different constraints as compared with the managers,
R > 27 35 32% Populars < 4 13 12% since the test results might have been viewed by the latter as
DQv > 2 20 18% Populars > 7 13 12% having potential consequences on their professional position.
S>2 38 34% COP = 0 44 40% As a result, I examined the possibility that the Rorschach per-
Sum T = 0 87 78% COP > 2 18 16% formance was more constrained or inhibited in the managers
Sum T > 1 6 5% AG = 0 61 55%
3r+(2)/R < .33 28 25% AG > 2 11 10% group, due to an increased defensive attitude. The second dif-
3r+(2)/R > .44 52 47% MOR > 2 23 21% ference regards the socioeconomic status (SES) and educational
Fr + rF > 0 24 22% Level 2 Sp.Sc. > 0 9 8% level of the two groups. As Table 2 shows, the research volun-
PureC > 0 27 24% GHR > PHR 79 71% teers have a lower SES2 and educational level than the non-
PureC > 1 7 6% Pure H < 2 38 34%
Afr < .40 38 34% Pure H = 0 16 14%
volunteers. Both SES and educational level can have important
Afr < .50 56 50% p > a+1 26 23% effects on Rorschach performance (do Nascimento, 2004; Pires,
(FM+m) < Sum Shading 19 17% Mp > Ma 45 41% 2000; Ephraim, Occupati, Riquelme, & Gonzalez, 1993).
To assess the cumulative effects of these variables on the test
data, t tests were conducted, taking as an independent variable
the respondent status (research volunteer/manager) and as de-
Psychiatric Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: The sub- pendent variables R, PureF%, Zf, X%, and WSum6. As seen
jects were included in this study if they had no psychiatric in Table 2, the research volunteers had a significantly lower
history. response productivity (R), a higher percentage of Pure Form
responses (PureF%), and a lower number of Z scores (Zf) than
Other Characteristics: No participant reported having
been subject to a severe traumatic event. Religious beliefs were
not recorded. Since in Romania most of the people are Christian 2 For this analysis, SES was used as a dimensional variable where participants
Orthodox (>90%), however, it is reasonable to assume that this with lower SES received 1 point, participants with middle SES received 2 points,
was the religion of almost all participants. and participants with higher SES received 3 points.
S144 DUMITRASCU

TABLE 2.Comparisons among research volunteers and managers on socioeconomic status, education, and several Rorschach variables.

Volunteers (n = 79) Managers (n = 32)

Variable Mean SD Mean SD t value Cohens d

Socioeconomic Status 1.49 .50 2.97 .18 22.81 3.44


Years of Education 12.14 2.69 16.88 .34 9.91 2.10
Rorschach Scores
R 21.99 9.65 30.06 12.87 3.61 0.76
Pure F% .49 .20 .36 .16 3.38 0.69
Zf 12.73 6.30 19.72 9.38 4.57 0.97
X% .18 .10 .18 .07 0.00 0.00
WSum6 4.89 4.77 6.19 7.06 1.13 0.24

p < .01, n = 111.

the managers. Probably, these differences are due to the superior and Introduction to the Szondi Test by Deri (1949). He also wrote
educational level of the managers. On the other hand, no signif- and published in 2005 a book on Indirect Measures of Person-
icant differences were found on X% and WSum6 between the ality, where he presented for the first time in Romania Exners
groups. CS.

Other tests administered with the Rorschach. Additional


Number of protocols each examiner contributed and anal-
tests were administered to both groups of participants in the
yses of examiner differences. The author collected all proto-
same test session. For the research volunteer group, mea-
cols.
sures were administered in the following order: Draw-a-Person
test (Urban, 1967), Szondi test (Szondi, 1973), Rorschach test
(Rorschach, 1921), Locus of Control scale (Nowicki & Strick- Language(s) for test administration. All the respondents
land, 1973), Self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965), and Anxiety were Romanian natives; therefore, all test administrations were
and Depression scales from the MMPI2 scales (Graham, 1999). completed in Romanian.
For the manager group, the measures were administered in the
following order: Draw-a-Person, Szondi, Rorschach, and the CS Administration and Scoring Procedures
California Psychological Inventory (Gough & Bradley, 1996).
Site of testing and warm-up procedures. Given that the
Feedback from the testing results. All research volunteers participants came from various backgrounds, their testing was
agreed, prior to the study, that they would not receive feed- done in different locations, such as company offices or university
back from the examiner, as their records would be used only for classrooms. The measures always were administered after a
group comparisons and not for individual analysis. The man- warm-up talk, and the Rorschach test came as a third in the
ager group was given personality feedback based on aggregate sequence of tests (see above).
data obtained from interview and testing. Data also were used
to make recommendations for helping them to cope with job- Seating and procedures used to record responses. An ef-
related stress and to improve their interpersonal perceptions and fort was made to use the standard side-by-side sitting position.
relations. When this was not possible, because of the constraints of the
location, the subject sat at a 90-degree angle relative to the ex-
Exclusions based on background characteristics. This aminer. The face-to-face position was never used. The responses
sample only included people with ages between 18 and 62 who were recorded by hand, and the Locations were recorded on the
had no psychiatric history, no invalidating physical problems, standard Location Sheets.
and no hospitalization in the previous 6 months.

Examiners Procedures to obtain R > 13 and/or to constrain high R.


When a subject gave fewer than 14 responses, Exners Work-
Number of examiners and selection for the project. All book (1993, 1995) guidelines were followed. Only five records
protocols were collected by the author.
had 13 responses or fewer, and in those cases the test was imme-
Training and level of experience with CS administration. diately readministered, resulting in records with more than 14
The author has 6 years of experience using the CS and followed a responses. Therefore, there was no need to reject any protocol
formal training in CS administration, scoring, and interpretation because of an insufficient number of responses. There also were
organized by the clinical psychologist Liliana Vintila, a repre- seven records where there was a need to shorten the number
sentative of the Swedish Rorschach Association. The author of responses, and this was done following Exners procedures
also was a Lecturer at Titu Maiorescu University in Bucharest, (1995).
teaching Implicit Measures of Personality. He translated and
published in Romanian three books on the area: Psychodiagnos- Other tests administered with the Rorschach. As men-
tik by Rorschach (1921), The Psychoanalytical Interpretation of tioned above, all measures were administered in the same
Rorschach Testing: Theory and Application by Schafer (1954), session.
ROMANIAN ADULT NONPATIENTS S145

TABLE 3.Romanian nonpatient sample response level interrater reliability TABLE 4.Data on several Rorschach variables related to cognitive functioning,
statistics (n = 20). affect, and interpersonal relationships in a Romanian sample, two U.S. samples
(ExnerErdberg, ShafferErdbergHaroian), and a Portuguese sample.
Variable % Agreement Iota (Kappa)
Samples
Whole Responses .97 .79
Location & Space (2 variables) .98 .94 Romanian ExnerErdberg ShafferErdberg Portuguese
DQ (+,o,v/+,v) .91 .82 Variables ( n = 111) (n = 450) Haroian (n = 123) ( n = 309)
Determinants (11 variables) .96 .79
FQ (None,+,o,u,) .74 .56 Cognitive
Pairs .95 .88 R 24.31 23.36 20.83 22.07
Contents (27 variables) .98 .80 Zf 14.75 13.45 l2.67 10.56
P .92 .81 DQ+ 7.32 8.43 5.87 5.15
Z Score .90 .89 M 3.73 4.83 3.64 2.84
CS Special Scores (14 variables) .98 .59 X% 0.18 0.11 0.2l 0.12
WSum6 5.26 7.12 6.63 2.88
Note. The 20 cases were scored independently twiceonce by the author and once by Lambda 1.28 0.58 l.22 1.21
one of four other judges. Pure F% 0.45 0.34 0.46 0.44
Popular 5.69 6.28 5.45 4.93
Affective
(CF+C) > 44 26 24 34
Monitoring of test administration quality. To ensure good FC+1
quality in the testing process, the author asked for assis- SumShading 3.05 3.94 3.02 3.78
tance from the CS specialists on the Rorschach Email List Blends 3.29 5.56 3.06 3.53
Space 2.23 2.37 2.44 2.26
(listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu) whenever unusual situations oc- Interpersonal
curred. Exners (1993, 1995) manuals also were consulted for SumH 5.40 6.29 6.06 4.26
the same purpose. SumT = 0 78 19 64 50
COP = 0 40 11 39 42
AG = 0 55 44 73 61
CS scoring procedures. All records were scored by the

author following Exners (1993, 1995) and Vigliones (2002)
Mean.
Percentage of people.
manuals. The authors scoring practice was initiated during his
formal training and continued by completing several times all the
Exner practice exercises in the Workbook (1995), by thoroughly scores; see Janson & Olsson, 2001, 2004). Iota values ranged
studying the cases presented in Weiner (1998) and Exner (1991, from .56 to .94. There was less than desirable reliability for form
1993), and particularly the comprehensive scoring manual by quality and special scores, so these scores should be considered
Viglione (2002). He also conducted in Romania between 2002 cautiously.
and 2006 workshops on the Rorschach and was exposed to The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented
several hundred records from the students assignments. Finally, in Table 1, which also provides frequency data for CS scores.
feedback from scoring issues was obtained from the Rorschach Descriptive statistics for the CS variables are shown in Table 5.
Discussion Mailing List. In this sample, the average R was 24.3, and the median Lambda
was .73. Forty- three percent of the sample had an avoidant style,
Protocol selection and examiners for scoring reliability. and the remainder of the sample was split fairly evenly between
A sample of 20 records randomly was selected and submitted
introversive, extratensive, and ambitent. Seventy-eight percent
to four independent scorers for computing interrater reliabil-
of the sample had no texture score, though 71% of the sample
ity. Each record was independently scored twice, once by the
had more GHR than PHR. In terms of perception and thinking,
author and once by one of the scorers. Therefore, each indepen-
average values were .56 for X+%, .18 for X%, and 5.3 for the
dent scorer received five records to score. All four scorers are
WSum6.
Romanian licensed clinical psychologists and received at least
100 hours of formal training in the CS through the workshops
conducted by the author. DISCUSSION
Although the sample was not random, some of its character-
Monitoring of test scoring quality. Basically, self- istics parallel those of the general population. Thus, the sam-
monitoring of the test scoring was accomplished by the author ple had no psychiatric history, and the gender distribution was
through consulting Vigliones handbook (2002) when unusual 42.3%/57.7%, reflecting the actual Romanian gender distribu-
scoring issues were encountered and eventually searching for tion in the population.
feedback from specialists on the Rorschach Email List men- The education level is likely not representative of the gen-
tioned above. eral population, however, in that our sample consisted of about
52.3% with more than 12 years of education, while in the general
RESULTS population this percent is likely much lower. Likewise, the rela-
Interscorer reliability results are presented in Table 3. Percent tively high percentage of people with higher SES in this sample
agreement and iota were calculated at the response level across (28%) very probably does not mirror the real proportion of the
all CS variables in coding segments. Iota is a chance corrected upper class in the population. Finally, this sample consisted of
reliability coefficient that is equivalent to Cohens kappa but can people born and raised in big urban cities, which also reduces
be computed for multivariate data (e.g., across all determinant from the generalizability of the sample.
S146 DUMITRASCU

TABLE 5.Descriptive statistics for 111 nonpatient adults from Romania.


Variable Mean SD Min Max Freq Median Mode SK KU
Variable Mean SD Min Max Freq Median Mode SK KU
Populars 5.69 1.93 0.00 11.00 110 6.00 5.00 0.05 0.84
Age 38.29 11.65 18.00 62.00 111 39.00 48.00 0.07 1.14 XA% 0.81 0.10 0.47 1.00 111 0.82 0.93 0.68 0.68
R 24.31 11.23 14.00 53.00 111 19.00 14.00 1.10 0.07 WDA% 0.83 0.09 0.47 1.00 111 0.85 0.93 1.06 1.78
W 11.10 6.96 0.00 39.00 110 10.00 9.00 1.53 3.03 X+% 0.56 0.14 0.05 0.94 111 0.56 0.71 0.03 0.94
D 10.34 7.76 0.00 37.00 110 8.00 4.00 1.12 0.66 X% 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.53 107 0.17 0.07 0.73 1.19
Dd 2.87 [4.24] 0.00 26.00 84 1.00 1.00 3.26 13.14 Xu% 0.25 0.11 0.00 0.53 108 0.27 0.33 0.10 0.03
S 2.23 [2.76] 0.00 15.00 78 1.00 0.00 2.10 5.52 Isolate/R 0.22 0.14 0.00 0.65 103 0.21 0.21 0.74 0.38
DQ+ 7.32 5.78 0.00 33.00 107 6.00 5.00 1.91 5.14 H 2.74 3.05 0.00 24.00 95 2.00 2.00 3.84 22.24
DQo 15.09 7.79 1.00 43.00 111 14.00 10.00 1.13 1.19 (H) 1.00 1.06 0.00 4.00 66 1.00 0.00 0.88 0.06
DQv 1.44 [1.82] 0.00 9.00 70 1.00 0.00 2.07 5.24 HD 1.23 1.99 0.00 13.00 58 1.00 0.00 3.25 13.91
DQv/+ 0.46 [0.93] 0.00 6.00 31 0.00 0.00 2.93 11.59 (Hd) 0.43 0.83 0.00 4.00 30 0.00 0.00 2.08 4.12
FQx+ 0.14 0.56 0.00 4.00 8 0.00 0.00 4.98 27.02 Hx 0.15 [0.62] 0.00 5.00 10 0.00 0.00 5.69 37.82
FQxo 12.75 4.78 1.00 27.00 111 12.00 12.00 0.79 0.49 H+(H)+Hd+(Hd) 5.40 4.60 0.00 28.00 103 4.00 3.00 1.92 5.23
FQxu 6.59 4.87 0.00 23.00 108 5.00 4.00 1.16 0.84 (H)+Hd+(Hd) 2.66 2.84 0.00 16.00 86 2.00 0.00 2.07 5.96
FQx 4.54 3.71 0.00 21.00 107 4.00 2.00 1.77 3.99 A 9.71 3.76 3.00 19.00 111 9.00 8.00 0.49 0.33
FQxNone 0.31 [0.71] 0.00 4.00 23 0.00 0.00 2.88 9.28 (A) 0.39 [0.73] 0.00 4.00 32 0.00 0.00 2.41 7.01
MQ+ 0.10 0.48 0.00 4.00 6 0.00 0.00 6.08 41.85 Ad 2.01 [1.97] 0.00 11.00 88 2.00 1.00 2.21 7.52
MQo 2.41 2.08 0.00 11.00 92 2.00 2.00 1.44 3.15 (Ad) 0.10 [0.36] 0.00 2.00 9 0.00 0.00 3.86 15.37
MQu 0.47 0.78 0.00 3.00 35 0.00 0.00 1.60 1.72 An 0.96 [1.46] 0.00 8.00 56 1.00 0.00 2.42 7.19
MQ 0.74 [1.58] 0.00 14.00 43 0.00 0.00 5.75 45.53 Art 1.30 1.65 0.00 8.00 64 1.00 0.00 1.64 2.80
MQNone 0.01 [0.10] 0.00 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 10.53 111.00 Ay 0.31 [0.76] 0.00 5.00 24 0.00 0.00 3.84 18.11
SQual 0.69 [1.14] 0.00 6.00 41 0.00 0.00 1.96 4.32 Bl 0.15 [0.43] 0.00 2.00 14 0.00 0.00 2.92 8.26
M 3.73 3.84 0.00 27.00 94 3.00 2.00 2.78 12.40 Bt 2.05 1.86 0.00 8.00 87 2.00 1.00 1.04 0.61
FM 4.17 2.77 0.00 13.00 106 4.00 3.00 1.02 1.37 Cg 1.49 1.99 0.00 12.00 67 1.00 0.00 2.41 8.16
m 1.44 2.00 0.00 8.00 59 1.00 0.00 1.66 2.30 Cl 0.09 [0.29] 0.00 1.00 10 0.00 0.00 2.90 6.54
FC 1.23 1.54 0.00 8.00 63 1.00 0.00 1.79 4.23 Ex 0.07 [0.29] 0.00 2.00 7 0.00 0.00 4.40 20.81
CF 2.18 2.19 0.00 10.00 88 1.00 1.00 1.57 2.81 Fi 0.53 [0.84] 0.00 4.00 40 0.00 0.00 1.72 2.88
C 0.32 [0.66] 0.00 4.00 27 0.00 0.00 2.58 8.60 Food 0.33 [0.65] 0.00 3.00 28 0.00 0.00 2.15 4.64
Cn 0.00 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Ge 0.23 [0.60] 0.00 4.00 19 0.00 0.00 3.41 14.79
Sum Color 3.73 2.98 0.00 13.00 102 3.00 1.00 1.17 1.25 Hh 0.84 1.23 0.00 8.00 53 0.00 0.00 2.54 10.14
WSumC 3.28 2.78 0.00 15.00 102 3.00 1.00 1.54 3.23 Ls 1.17 1.49 0.00 9.00 68 1.00 0.00 2.64 10.20
FC 0.86 [1.09] 0.00 5.00 53 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.84 Na 0.81 [1.41] 0.00 8.00 48 0.00 0.00 2.89 10.02
C F 0.27 [0.60] 0.00 3.00 22 0.00 0.00 2.35 5.24 Sc 1.22 [1.64] 0.00 10.00 60 1.00 0.00 2.13 6.99
C 0.04 [0.19] 0.00 1.00 4 0.00 0.00 5.04 23.90 Sx 0.40 [1.24] 0.00 10.00 23 0.00 0.00 5.52 36.68
FT 0.26 [0.61] 0.00 3.00 21 0.00 0.00 2.66 7.34 Xy 0.23 [0.48] 0.00 2.00 22 0.00 0.00 2.05 3.57
TF 0.04 [0.23] 0.00 2.00 3 0.00 0.00 7.05 53.17 Idiographic 1.51 1.97 0.00 8.00 67 1.00 0.00 1.63 2.11
T 0.01 [0.10] 0.00 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 10.53 111.00 An+Xy 1.19 [1.60] 0.00 10.00 66 1.00 0.00 2.55 9.20
FV 0.23 [0.55] 0.00 3.00 19 0.00 0.00 2.72 7.79 DV 0.27 [0.62] 0.00 3.00 22 0.00 0.00 2.59 6.97
VF 0.20 [0.52] 0.00 2.00 16 0.00 0.00 2.61 5.84 INCOM 1.12 [1.09] 0.00 4.00 72 1.00 0.00 0.82 0.03
V 0.01 [0.10] 0.00 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 10.53 111.00 DR 0.12 [0.50] 0.00 4.00 8 0.00 0.00 5.57 36.23
FY 0.69 [1.15] 0.00 6.00 41 0.00 0.00 2.17 5.38 FABCOM 0.35 [0.64] 0.00 3.00 31 0.00 0.00 2.04 4.48
YF 0.39 [0.70] 0.00 3.00 31 0.00 0.00 1.85 2.90 DV2 0.00 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Y 0.07 [0.37] 0.00 3.00 5 0.00 0.00 6.10 40.64 INC2 0.02 [0.13] 0.00 1.00 2 0.00 0.00 7.34 52.93
Fr 0.39 [1.10] 0.00 9.00 24 0.00 0.00 5.31 35.79 DR2 0.00 [0.00] 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
rF 0.01 [0.10] 0.00 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 10.53 111.00 FAB2 0.07 [0.29] 0.00 2.00 7 0.00 0.00 4.40 20.81
Sum C 1.16 [1.35] 0.00 6.00 63 1.00 0.00 1.20 1.12 ALOG 0.07 [0.26] 0.00 1.00 8 0.00 0.00 3.35 9.43
Sum T 0.31 [0.70] 0.00 4.00 24 0.00 0.00 2.92 9.90 CONTAM 0.01 [0.10] 0.00 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 10.53 111.00
Sum V 0.43 [0.88] 0.00 5.00 30 0.00 0.00 2.69 8.61 Sum 6 Sp Sc 2.03 1.80 0.00 9.00 92 2.00 1.00 1.30 1.75
Sum Y 1.14 [1.61] 0.00 7.00 57 1.00 0.00 1.68 2.27 Lvl 2 Sp Sc 0.09 [0.32] 0.00 2.00 9 0.00 0.00 3.73 14.64
Sum Shading 3.05 3.20 0.00 13.00 83 2.00 0.00 1.23 0.93 WSum6 5.26 5.52 0.00 31.00 92 4.00 2.00 1.83 4.19
Fr+rF 0.40 [1.11] 0.00 9.00 24 0.00 0.00 5.18 34.41 AB 0.20 [0.64] 0.00 5.00 15 0.00 0.00 4.98 30.88
FD 0.72 [1.24] 0.00 9.00 49 0.00 0.00 3.60 18.89 AG 0.87 1.36 0.00 8.00 50 0.00 0.00 2.41 7.47
F 10.94 6.95 1.00 37.00 111 9.00 5.00 1.24 1.52 COP 1.37 1.65 0.00 10.00 67 1.00 0.00 2.21 7.89
(2) 9.10 6.23 0.00 34.00 110 7.00 7.00 1.76 3.73 CP 0.01 [0.10] 0.00 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 10.53 111.00
3r+(2)/R 0.43 0.17 0.06 1.11 111 0.44 0.50 0.33 1.33 Good HR 3.85 2.63 0.00 13.00 104 3.00 3.00 1.30 2.14
Lambda 1.28 1.70 0.07 14.00 111 0.73 0.42 4.64 29.57 Poor HR 2.41 3.30 0.00 21.00 72 1.00 0.00 2.77 10.78
PureF% 0.45 0.20 0.06 1.00 111 0.42 0.29 0.34 0.52 MOR 1.54 [1.79] 0.00 10.00 72 1.00 0.00 1.78 4.37
FM+m 5.61 3.98 0.00 18.00 106 5.00 5.00 1.09 0.93 PER 0.69 1.03 0.00 4.00 46 0.00 0.00 1.65 2.28
EA 7.01 5.16 0.00 28.00 109 6.00 6.00 1.49 2.86 PSV 0.41 [0.78] 0.00 4.00 32 0.00 0.00 2.55 7.78
es 8.66 6.25 0.00 28.00 108 7.00 7.00 1.10 0.78 PTI total 0.41 0.80 0.00 3.00 29 0.00 0.00 2.00 3.20
D Score 0.51 1.35 5.00 4.00 52 0.00 0.00 0.60 2.16 DEPI total 3.51 1.28 1.00 7.00 111 3.00 3.00 0.25 0.32
AdjD 0.02 1.24 4.00 5.00 52 0.00 0.00 0.17 3.06 CDI total 2.80 1.35 0.00 5.00 109 3.00 2.00 0.07 1.04
a (active) 5.18 4.38 0.00 26.00 102 4.00 4.00 1.75 4.79 SCon total 4.68 1.72 1.00 9.00 111 5.00 4.00 0.14 0.18
p (passive) 4.19 3.60 0.00 18.00 97 4.00 3.00 1.34 2.15 HVI total 2.60 1.60 0.00 7.00 109 2.00 2.00 0.93 0.29
Ma 1.87 2.36 0.00 17.00 74 1.00 0.00 3.05 15.29 OBS total (15) 1.06 1.00 0.00 4.00 71 1.00 0.00 0.58 0.50
Mp 1.88 2.12 0.00 11.00 76 2.00 0.00 1.83 4.34 WD+ 0.14 0.56 0.00 4.00 8 0.00 0.00 4.98 27.02
Intellect 2.00 2.24 0.00 11.00 77 1.00 0.00 1.52 2.61 WDo 11.94 4.28 1.00 25.00 111 11.00 11.00 0.68 0.52
Zf 14.75 7.92 4.00 43.00 111 13.00 10.00 1.38 2.07 WDu 5.59 4.10 0.00 22.00 105 5.00 3.00 1.32 2.24
Zd 1.85 4.89 16.50 13.50 108 2.00 3.50 0.36 1.53 WD 3.49 2.83 0.00 16.00 106 3.00 2.00 1.89 4.99
Blends 3.29 3.45 0.00 15.00 89 2.00 0.00 1.41 1.58 WDNone 0.29 0.68 0.00 4.00 22 0.00 0.00 2.93 10.04
Blends/R 0.14 0.12 0.00 0.56 89 0.10 0.00 0.96 0.45 EII2 0.35 0.98 1.90 4.61 111 0.54 0.88 1.92 6.58
Col-Shd Blends 0.48 [0.93] 0.00 4.00 30 0.00 0.00 2.18 4.55 HRV 1.44 2.87 13.00 7.00 96 2.00 3.00 1.52 5.72
Afr 0.49 0.18 0.17 1.20 111 0.48 0.56 0.78 1.24
ROMANIAN ADULT NONPATIENTS S147

Despite these caveats, the current study documents for the first ShafferErdbergHaroian samples than in the other two sam-
time in the literature some normative data for the Rorschach on ples. The Exner and Erdberg sample provided the highest mean
a Romanian sample. These data can be used in comparisons and of Blends, as compared with the other three samples. On the
further cross-cultural validation of the Rorschach. other hand, the frequency of Space responses is very consistent
From this viewpoint, it is interesting to note some similarities in all four samples considered.
and differences on several Rorschach variables between this As for the Interpersonal variables, SumH in the Romanian
sample on one hand and three other samples on the other hand: sample is smaller than that in the American samples and greater
CS American reference norms 450 (Exner & Edberg, 2005), than that in the Portuguese sample. Also, it is interesting to note
another CS American sample (Shaffer, Erdberg, & Haroian, that the greatest percentage of people with no Texture responses
1999) and a Portuguese sample (Pires, 2000). can be seen in the Romanian sample as compared with the
For this comparison, a series of important Rorschach variables other three samples. There is particularly a large discrepancy
were chosen, related to the following: between the Romanian sample and the ExnerErdberg sample
on this point (78% to 19%). Regarding the COP responses,
1. Cognitive functioning: response productivity (R), organiza- it can be noted that the percentage of people without COP is
tional activity (DQ+ and Zf), reasoning complexity (M), quite similar in the Romanian, ShafferErdbergHaroian, and
perceptual and ideational distortions (X% and WSum6), Portuguese samples. This percentage, however, is much lower
Lambda (PureF%), and conventionalism (Populars). in the ExnerErdberg sample. On the other hand, the percentage
2. Emotions: control of emotional display (FC: CF+C), anger of people without AG responses is quite similar in the Romanian
(Space), emotional distress (SumShading), psychological and Portuguese samples, lower in the ExnerErdberg sample,
complexity (Blends). and higher in the ShafferErdbergHaroian sample.
3. Interpersonal relations: interest in people (SumH), view on All in all, the data suggest that the Romanian sample is more
social interactions (COP and AG), and display the need for similar in these important Rorschach variables to the Shaffer
emotional contact (Texture). ErdbergHaroian sample than to the other two samples. This
may suggest further that a series of factors such as sample size,
As seen in the Table 4, the average number of responses (R) is demographic composition, or sampling method are apparently
quite similar in all these four samples, the largest discrepancy oc- more important than the cultural space (European vs. American)
curring between the Romanian sample (24.31) and the Shaffer in accounting for Rorschach performance.
ErdbergHaroian sample (20.83). The frequency of organiza-
tional activity (Zf) is similar in the Romanian sample and the
two American samples, but it seems somewhat higher than in the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Portuguese sample. The number of synthesis responses (DQ+)
The author thanks Dr. Greg Meyer for his invaluable help in
is similar in the Romanian sample and the ExnerErdberg sam-
writing this article. Also, the author thanks Laura Lazurca, Anca
ple, and a little higher than in the other two samples. The fre-
Preda, Oana Sandovici, Nusa Trandafir, and Sinziana Burcea for
quency of Human Movement responses (M) in the Romanian
their assistance in evaluating the interrater reliability.
sample is quite close to that in the ShafferErdbergHaroian
sample, but lower than that in the ExnerErdberg sample. The
Portuguese sample provided the smallest number of M. As for REFERENCES
the rate of perceptual distortions (X%), again the Romanian
sample is very similar to the ShafferErdbergHaroian sample, Deri, S. (1949). Introduction to the Szondi Test: Theory and practice.
New York: Grune & Stratton.
whereas the other two samples show smaller values for this vari-
do Nascimento, R.S.G.F. (2004). The impact of education and/or socioeconomic
able. The variable WSum6 seems to have close average values conditions on Rorschach data in a Brazilian nonpatient sample. Rorschachi-
in the Romanian sample and the two American samples, but ana, 26, 4562.
it is clearly different in the Portuguese sample, where it has Ephraim, D., Occupati, R. A., Riquelme, J. J., & Gonzalez, E. C. (1993). Gender,
the smallest average value (almost half the Romanian sample age and socioeconomic Differences in Rorschach thematic content scales.
value). The variable Lambda shows very similar mean values Rorschachiana, 18, 6881.
in the Romanian, ShafferErdbergHaroian, and the Portuguese Exner, J. E. (1991). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System: Vol. 2. Interpre-
sample, but it is much lower in the ExnerErdberg sample. If tation. New York: Wiley.
Lambda is expressed as PureF%,3 however, this discrepancy is Exner, J. E. (1993). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System: Vol. 1. Basic
greatly reduced. Finally, the mean of Popular responses is quite foundations (3rd ed.) Wiley: New York.
Exner, J. E. (1995). A Rorschach workbook for the Comprehensive System (4th
similar across the four samples, this similarity being greater be-
ed). Asheville, NC: Rorschach Workshops.
tween the Romanian sample and the ShafferErdbergHaroian Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System: Vol. I. Ba-
sample. sic foundations and principles of interpretation (4th ed.). New York:
Regarding the affective variables, the Romanian sample dis- Wiley.
plays a higher percentage of people where CF+C is greater than Exner, J. E., Jr., & Erdberg, P. (2005). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System.
FC + 1, as compared with the other three samples. The average Vol. 2. (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
number of Shadings is somewhat lower in the Romanian and Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Graham, J. R. (1999). MMPI2: Assessing personality on psychopathology (3rd
3 For both the ShafferErdbergHaroian sample and the Portuguese sample, ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
PureF% was estimated by dividing the average number of F by the average Janson, H., & Olsson, U. (2001). A measure of agreement for interval or nominal
number of responses (R). multivariate observations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61,
277289.
S148 DUMITRASCU

Janson, H., & Olsson, U. (2004). A measure of agreement for interval or nom- Rorschach, H. (1921). Psychodiagnostik. Bern, Switzerland: Bircher.
inal multivariate observations by different sets of judges. Educational and Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and me: Adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Psychological Measurement, 64, 6270. Princeton University Press.
Nowicki, S., Jr., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). Nowicki and Strickland Locus Shafer, R. (1954). The psychoanalytical interpretation of Rorschach testing:
of Control Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148 Theory and application. Oxford: Grune & Stratton.
154. Shaffer, T., Erdberg, P., & Haroian, J. (1999). Current nonpatient data for the
Pires, A. A. (2000). National norms for the Rorschach Normative Study in Rorschach, WAISR, and MMPI2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73,
Portugal. In R. H. Dana (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural and multicultural 305316.
personality assessment (pp. 367392). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As- Szondi, L. (1973). Diagnostic experimental des pulsions [Experimental diag-
sociates. nostics of drives]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Ritzler, B. A. (2001). Multicultural usage of the Rorschach. In L. Suzuki, Urban, W. H. (1967). The Draw-a-person" catalogue for interpretative anal-
J. Ponterotto, & P. Meller (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural assessment ysis. (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills. CA: Western Psychological Services.
(pp. 237252). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Viglione, D. J. (2002). Rorschach coding solutions: A reference guide for the
Ritzler, B. A. (2004). Cultural applications of the Rorschach, apperception tests, Comprehensive System. San Diego, CA: Author.
and figure drawings. In M. J. Hilsenroth & D. L. Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive Weiner, I. B. (1998). Principles of Rorschach interpretation. Mahwah, NJ:
handbook of psychological assessment (pp. 573585). New York: Wiley. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.