Special Scores
The final
task of coding the Rorschach response is to
decide if the answer has features that
require the addition of one or more Special
Scores. Like most other categories, special
scores are codes, rather than numerical
scores, that signal the presence of unusual features in the response.
There are 15 special scores. 6 concern
unusual verbalizations, one is used for
preservations, 4 involve special features of
content, 2 are used to differentiate
responses containing human representations,
one is used when the answer is personalized,
and one identifies a special color
phenomenon.
Some special codes (DV, DR, INCOM, and FABCOM) are further differentiated to: Level
1 or Level 2 responses, when Level 2 indicates uncommon and bizarre responses. In
case of doubt score Level 1 (conservative stance). However, variables such as culture background, age, or education should not be considered in making the differentiation between level 1 & 2.
The interactive table shows the Special Scores areas and codes, with links for further clarification and application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||
Coding Multiple Special scores:
It is not uncommon
for a response to meet the criteria for more
than one special score and, usually, when
that occurs all the special scores that
apply should be included in the coding.
However, there are some exceptions to this
rule. Thus, if a CONTAM has been scored,
none of the following will be scored (DV,
DR, INCOM, FABCOM, or ALOG).
The same wording, or the same instance of cognitive confusion, should never be used as a source for which to code more than one of the six unusual verbalization special scores. The decision should be made on whether they occur discretely or not. For example, "2 pink bears climbing the sides of an ice cream con" contains both an INCOM1 (pink bears) and a FABCOM2 (climbing on an ice cream con). These are discrete instances, thus both special scores should be coded.
| Unusual Verbalization | Clarification: Unusual Verbalization pertains to 3 categories of cognitive slippage: Deviant Verbalization (DV and DR), Inappropriate Combination (INCOM, FABCOM, CONTAM), or Inappropriate Logic (ALOG). Some codes (DV, DR, INCOM, and FABCOM) are further differentiated to: Level 1 or - A mild or modest instance of fluid and peculiar thinking is present. Level 2 - A moderate or severe dissociated and illogical thinking is present. Level 2 responses are very unusual and bizarre. To differentiate between the Levels, the coder should estimate if the cognitive failure represents a casual form of cognitive slippage, or is it the result of strained, disrupted, inappropriate thinking that departs rather noticeably from reality. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deviant Verbalization | There are 2 codes for Deviant Verbalization (DV and DR). Both refer to an expression that reflects impair in the ability to communicate clearly. DV identify responses with inappropriate word selection, while DR identify responses with inappropriate phrases and fluent elaboration. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DV Deviant Verbalization | a. Neologism Use of incorrect word, or neologism, in place of an appropriate word. Examples: "Bacteria under telescope" = DV1 "A fly plopping" = DV1 "Spiders trying to squish each other" = DV1 "It's a pencil, this is the pointy part" = DV1 "A woman with a disrethal air about her" = DV2 "The public arch of somebody" = DV2 b. Redundancy Identifies twice the nature of the object(s). Examples: "A tiny little bird" = DV1 "Dead corpse" = DV1 "It's empty, like a hollow void" = DV1 "The two twin lips of a vagina" = DV2 "A trio of three people" = DV2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| DR Deviant Response | Reflects detach from the task by using a phrase that is not relevant to the task, or by inappropriate elaboration. DR is not necessarily bizarre. If a response contains also a DV, only DR is coded. a. Inappropriate Phrases Irrelevant PhrasesExamples:"It could be oysters but I guess they're out of season" = DR1 "It might be a cat, my father always hated cats" = DR1 "A vagina, whoever made these was preoccupies" = DR1 "It's some kind of bug that no one has ever seen" = DR2 "It looks like the face of Reagan if you're a Republican" = DR2 "A bird, but I was hoping to see a butterfly" = DR2 b. Circumstantial ResponsesInappropriate, fluid, and rambling elaboration.In distinguish from appropriate elaboration, DR tends to wander off target, and may never return to the initial object.Examples: "It's like a chicken, like you get from KFC, but my mother makes it better, I think I must be getting hungry" = DR2 "Maybe 2 snakes, I always hated snakes, my brother used to tease me about it" = DR1 "It looks like some trees on a peaceful hill, like a place that you would want to go to get away from everything" = DR1 "Maybe animal nose, like in that play that was so filled with passions and drama. I saw it twice. Yes, the nose of a horse" =DR2"It's look the map of Ireland, maybe of someplace else. I don't know much about Ireland but I know about Mexico" = DR2 "It looks like oil on water and garbage too, just a lot of pollution that filthy people have thrown into the environment. People really are filthy, they ought to make laws to force them to wallow in their own filth" = DR2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Inappropriate Combinations | There are 3 codes for Inappropriate Combinations (INCOM, FABCOM, CONTAM). The codes used to identify responses in which the object received improbable attributes, implausible relationships between objects, implausible activities are attributed to objects, or an inappropriate condensation of impressions occurs in a manner that violates reality. INCOM and FABCOM are also differentiated as Level1 or Level 2. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| INCOM Incongruous Combination | Inappropriate merging of blot areas or images into a single object. Examples: Red bears" = INCOM1 "A man with yellow eyes" = INCOM1 "A bat, here are the wings, body and these are his hands" = INCOM1 An animal engaged in some kind of human activity = INCOM1 "A frog with 4 testicles" = INCOM2 "A woman with the head of a chicken" = INCOM2 "A marvelous penis with wings" = INCOM2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FABCOM Fabulized Combination | Impossible relationship imposed between 2 or more objects identified in discrete areas of the blot. Also, impossible transparencies (always coded as Level 2.) Examples: "2 chickens holding basketball" = FABCOM1 "2 ants dancing" = FABCOM1 Two or more animals jointly engaged in some human activity = FABCOM1 "2 woman attacking a submarine" = FABCOM2 "Rabbit head, with smoke come out of his eyes" = FABCOM2 "Big man sitting. You can see his heart pumping" = FABCOM2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CONTAM Contamination | Bizarre fusion of 2 impressions to a single blot area. Often include neologism. If CONTAM is coded no other score for unusual verbalization (DV, DR, INCOM, FABCOM, ALOG) should be included in the scoring. Examples: "A face of a bug-fox" (Card I, W. Fused face of a bug and a fox) "A butterflower" (Card III, center red D3. Fused of butterfly and flower) "It looks like blood, and an island, must be a bloody island" "It looks like fire and it looks like a mountain so it is a fire mountain" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Inappropriate Logic | This coding represents a loose thinking and a very flawed judgment. It is assigned whenever the person, without prompting, uses strained and unusual reasoning to explain the response. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ALOG Inappropriate Logic | Spontaneously use of unconventional reasoning to justify the answer. Some feature of the object is used, in a very illogical manner, to justify the response. "It must be the north pole because it's at the top of the card""He must be a coal miner because he's all black" "It is a giant because he's got those huge feet" "It is lettuce because it's next to this rabbit" "It's a giant bird because it takes up all of it [the card]" "This cat must be dead because you can’t see his eyes" "That is a face of a sad man" [U said it's a sad man] "It has to be, his mustache droops" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Perseveration | There are 3 kinds of Perseveration. One is when two or more almost identical responses are given to the same card. A second reflect instances in which a previously given response is alluded to again when the person is responding to a different card. The third is when the person redundantly gives the same response across several cards. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PSV Perseveration | a. Within Card PSV Consecutive responses in which the same location, DQ, determinant(s), FQ, content category, and Z score, if assigned, appear in both answers. (The specific content may change slightly, but the content category remains the same) Special scores do not have to be the same.A most common example, Card V, "Bat" (=Wo Fo A P 1) and then "Bird" (=the same, except it is not popular) b. Content PSV The participant identifies new objects as being the same one reported in an earlier response.The coding need not be the same. Mostly occurs between cards. Example: The subject may report 2 people fighting on one card, and then "There are those people again, but they are not fighting now" c. Mechanical PSV The subject mechanistically reports the same object again and again. Example: Card I- "A bat", II- " Bat", III- "Another bat", etc. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Special Content Characteristics | There are 4 codes for Special Content Characteristics, Abstract Content, Aggressive or Cooperative Movement, and Morbid Content. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AB Abstract Content | The subject articulates a clear and specific symbolic representation. Distinguish from Hx (Human Experience) that use to note human emotion or sensory experience. Abstract painting is not AB unless a specific symbolic representation is included. Examples: "A statue representing communist tyranny" "It just reminds me of depression" "A modern dance representing the beauty of women" "It's just a horrible smell, please take it back" "A mask that represents evil" "A poster showing dancer from the musical "Rent" "A black painting of man's struggle for purity" "An abstract of the star of the Ice Follies" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AG Aggressive Movement
| Any movement (M, FM, m) that is clearly aggressive in nature. Fighting, Breaking, Arguing, Angry look, Look angry. The aggression must be occurring. Examples: "2 animals fighting" "A bullet smashing through something" "A piece of paper that is being torn" "2 people arguing" "2 insects trying to knock down this post" "It looks like a man glaring right at you" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| COP Cooperative Movement | Any movement (M, FM, m) involving 2 or more objects in which the interaction is clearly positive or cooperative. Looking or talking are not scored COP. Examples: "2 man lifting something up" "2 insects trying to knock down this post" "2 people leaning toward each other, sharing a secret" "3 people doing a dance together" "A bird feeding her young" "2 children playing on a see-saw" "2 wolves attacking some other animal" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| MOR Morbid Content | The object is identified by either: a. As dead, destroyed, ruined, spoiled, damaged, injured, or broken Examples: "A broken mirror" "A dead dog" "A worn out pair of boots" "A bear that is injured" "A wound" "A torn coat" "A decaying leaf" b. The object is attributed with dysphoric feeling or characteristic. Examples: "A gloomy house" "A sad tree" "An unhappy person" "A person crying" "Depression" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Human Representational Responses | Human Representational Responses are defined as those responses which meet any of the following criteria: 2. Responses that contain the determinant M. 3. FM responses that have COP or AG special scores. Human representational responses are identified by the other codes that have been assigned to the response and then differentiated, using "good" (GHR) or "poor" (PHR) as a special score. If any of the criteria above is met, the coder should determine which of the two special scores, GHR or PHR, is appropriate by using the sequence of steps that is shown in the table below. These steps should follow in order until a coding decision is made. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| GHR / PHR Good or Poor Human Representational Responses | Follow the steps below if the response met any of the above criteria for human presentational response:
Examples:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Personalized Responses | Many responses contain personal pronounces like I, me, or we. Most are used naturally such as "It looks like a bat to me," or "I think that it looks like two bears." However, there are instances in which these forms of self references are used as part of the justification for an answer. When that happens a special score of personalized response is required. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PER Personal Response | The subject refers to personal knowledge or experience as part of the basis for justifying and/or clarifying a response. Examples: "I see them all the time in the yard" "I used to make them like that" "They make you wear one like that in the army" "My father show me some once" "If you ever took biology you know they look like that" "I bought one like it to my daughter" Not PER "They used them a long time ago" "I've never seen one but I think they are like that" "I don't like them" | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Color Projection | These are rear responses in which an achromatic blot area is identifies as being chromatically colored. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CP Color Projection | Subject identifies the presence of chromatic coloring in the achromatic blot area. Example: Usually using the shading features of the blot, thus requiring a determinant coding for diffuse shading (FY, YF, Y). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||