Simulating Local Biases in Visual Attention in Neurocognitive Performance.

Typical visual perception includes an attention bias toward right hemisphere mediated global, holistic cortical processing. An atypically local, detail-oriented focus of attention is characteristic of left hemisphere processing and is often observed in patients whose field of attention is restricted by certain types of neurocognitive impairment. We designed the present pair of studies to induce a local attentional focus to observe its consequences on neurocognitive measures of visuospatial processing. In Experiment I, participants wore glasses mimicking simultanagnosia, a disorder of visual attention, to induce a narrowed, atypical attentional style while they completed visual neuropsychological tasks. This simulation impaired participants' capacities to visually synthesize and efficiently reproduce Complex Figure stimuli as measured with the Boston Qualitative Scoring System (BQSS), and it induced an atypical attentional style on Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) responses. In Experiment II, participants wore glasses designed to provoke differential hemispheric activation, also hypothesized to influence style of visual attention; but this manipulation did not influence neurocognitive task performance. We discuss implications for the interpretation of BQSS and R-PAS scores and offer directions for future research.

Why We Need a Formal Systematic Approach to Validating Psychological Tests: The Case of the Rorschach Comprehensive System.

This article documents and discusses the importance of using a formal systematic approach to validating psychological tests. To illustrate, results are presented from a systematic review of the validity findings cited in the Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 2003) test manual, originally conducted during the manuscript review process for Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel's (2013) CS meta-analyses. Our review documents (a) the degree to which the CS test manual reports validity findings for each test variable, (b) whether these findings are publicly accessible or unpublished studies coordinated by the test developer, and (c) the presence and nature of data discrepancies between the CS test manual and the cited source. Implications are discussed for the CS in particular, the Rorschach more generally, and psychological tests more broadly. Notably, a history of intensive scrutiny of the Rorschach has resulted in more stringent standards applied to it, even though its scales have more published and supportive construct validity meta-analyses than any other psychological test. Calls are made for (a) a mechanism to correct data errors in the scientific literature, (b) guidelines for test developers' key unpublished studies, and (c) systematic reviews and meta-analyses to become standard practice for all psychological tests.

The Centrality of the Response Process in Construct Validity: An Illustration via the Rorschach Space Response.

Recently, psychologists have emphasized the response process-that is, the psychological operations and behaviors that lead to test scores-when designing psychological tests, interpreting their results, and refining their validity. To illustrate the centrality of the response process in construct validity and test interpretation, we provide a historical, conceptual, and empirical review of the main uses of the background white space of the Rorschach cards, called space reversal (SR) and space integration (SI) in the Rorschach Performance Assessment System. We show how SR and SI's unique response processes result in different interpretations, and that reviewing their literatures with these distinct interpretations in mind produces the expected patterns of convergent and discriminant validity. That is, SR was uniquely related to measures of oppositionality; SI was uniquely related to measures of cognitive complexity; and both SR and SI were related to measures of creativity. Our review further suggests that the Comprehensive System use of a single space code for all uses of white space likely led to its lack of meta-analytic support as a measure of oppositionality (Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, & Bombel, 2013 ). We close by discussing the use of the response process to improve test interpretation, develop better measures, and advance the design of research.

Psychological Assessment Training in Clinical Psychology Doctoral Programs.

We surveyed American Psychological Association-accredited clinical psychology doctoral programs' (n = 83) training in psychological assessment-specifically, their coverage of various assessment topics and tests in courses and practica, and whether the training was optional or required. We report results overall and separately per training model (clinical science, scientist-practitioner, and practitioner-focused). Overall, our results suggest that psychological assessment training is as active, or even more active, than in previous years. Areas of increased emphasis include clinical interviewing and psychometrics; multimethod, outcomes, health, and collaborative or therapeutic assessment; and different types of cognitive and self-report personality tests. All or almost all practice-focused programs offered training with the Thematic Apperception Test and Rorschach compared to about half of the scientist-practitioner programs and a third of the clinical science programs. Although almost all programs reported teaching multimethod assessment, what constitutes different methods of assessing psychopathology should be clarified in future studies because many programs appear to rely on one method-self-report (especially clinical science programs). Although doctoral programs covered many assessment topics and tests in didactic courses, there appears to be a shortage of program-run opportunities for students to obtain applied assessment training. Finally, we encourage doctoral programs to be familiar with (a) internships' assessment expectations and opportunities, (b) the professional guidelines for assessment training, and