Responses to the Holtzman Inkblot Technique by 59 elementary and secondary school children attending a summer reading clinic were studied. They differed from responses of standardization samples on 9 of the test's 22 variables: Location, Form appropriateness, Movement, Pathognomic verbalization, Animal, Anatomy, Sex, Hostility, and Penetration.
References
1.
HoltzmanW. H.Guide to administration and scoring: Holtzman Inkblot Technique. New York: Psychological Corp., 1961.
2.
HoltzmanW. H.Inkblot perception and personality. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 1963, 27, 84–95.
3.
HoltzmanW. H.ThorpeJ. S.SwartzJ. D.HerronE. W.Inkblot perception and personality. Austin: Univer. of Texas Press, 1961.
4.
JacksonD. N.Some observations on the role of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique in graduate clinical training and research. Paper presented to the American Psychological Association, Philadelphia, 1963.
5.
KrippnerS.The relationship of reading improvement to scores on the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1967, 27, 114–115.
6.
MaslowA. H.Motivation and personality. New York: Harper, 1954.
7.
MoseleyE. C.Psychodiagnosis on the basis of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1963, 27, 86–91.
8.
MoseleyE. C.An extension of the construct validity of the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1963, 19, 134–192.
9.
RobinsonH. M.Why pupils fail in reading. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press, 1946.
10.
RoswellF.NatchezG.Reading disability, diagnosis and treatment. New York: Basic Books, 1964.
11.
StuartM. F.Neurophysiological insights into teaching. Palo Alto: Pacific Books, 1963.
12.
ThomasE. L.Eye movements and fixations during initial viewing of Rorschach cards. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1963, 27, 345–353.
13.
ThorpeJ. S.SwartzJ. D.The roles of intelligence and social status in rejections on the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1963, 27, 248–251.
