Talk:Exner scoring system

Exner validating the Exner system
This is in response to User:209.77.205.9's edits regarding validy and reliability:

Some of your edits and statements make no sense. You said, Exner "surely can not be the one who validated his own system". Why??? Do you know of some obscure rule (that almost no one follows) that says a researcher cannot conduct research to validate his own system? With that reasoning, all of Wechsler's research on his intelligence scales must be thrown out the window. It is very common for a researcher to conduct validity research on his own instrument.

Secondly, if you just take a cursory look at the source cited (Exner, 2002) you will see that it summarize a massive amount of validity research conducted by Exner and many others.

Thirdly, what did you mean by "show inline ref"?? The citation was inline. And in any event, the citation system used in the article is perfectly acceptable per Wikipedia's policies.

And finally, why did you remove a perfectly legitimate citation and replace it with "citation needed"?

No personal offense, but without some additional information your edits give the impression that you know little about psychological testing, the Exner system, and Wikipedia's standards for citations. Ward3001 (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Psychology must be odd in that people are allowed to validate their own tests. In the physical sciences researchers are generally not permitted to publish "replications" of their own work. How do psychologists maintain their objectivity?
 * So I am glad that others have also done validation. There is no indication in the descriptions of the reference I was able to find that it was anything more than the work of an individual author.  Was Exner actually an editor on the 2002 book?
 * Thirdly, there was no  so your inline citation was not appearing in the article.
 * Is the inline citation the same as the one listed under a bullet in the References section? They seem to me to be the same.
 * I would like to request an additional, independent reference that the system has been validated. Is that request acceptable to you?  209.77.205.9 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Psychology is not odd, but your understanding of it is odd. The validation process involves the original research as well as any replications by others, sometimes conducted over a period of years. And many others have validated the Rorschach. Additionally, objectivity is maintained by conducting double-blind research, in which those collecting the data do not know which research condition a particular research subject is exposed to. Do you not think that "physical sciences" do the same thing? A scientist who develops a drug may design the research, but those administering the drug are blind to whether it is a placebo or the drug. Finally, inter-rater reliability inherently involves other researchers examining the coding techniques used in the Rorschach protocols.


 * The Exner (2002) book is a compilation of over thirty years of research by numerous researchers.


 * "I would like to request an additional, independent reference". It's superfluous and redundant, but I added one. Ward3001 (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that this article be merged with the main Rorschach article (as well as expanded), as part of an effort to improve the neutral POV of that page.Mirafra (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not restore supercategory
The subcategories of the article automatically assign it to psychology. If you add psychology as an extra category then it goes into the garbage dump of uncategorized psychology articles. That category is supposed to have zero articles in it. Please take the time to look for yourself how the category system works. Regards, Mattisse  22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)