Understanding storytelling tests through self theory – part 3 – Idealization

This is a third post in this subject.  The posts are inspired by Prof.  Marshall Silverstein's excellent book:

Self psychology and diagnostic assessment: identifying selfobject functions through psychological 

testing. 

In part three (here), we'll see how to find indications of idealizing self object needs is projective tests.

In part one (here, and also in the right hand column of this blog, under the heading "personality 

theories/psychotherapy")  we've seen how to identify signs of a non cohesive self in projective stories.

In part two  (here, and also in the right hand column of this blog, under the heading "personality theories/psychotherapy")  we've seen how to identify indications of mirroring needs in projective stories.

Understanding storytelling tests through self theory – part 2

  

 MIRRORING INDICATIONS IN PROJECTIVE TESTS

Part 2 of several posts based on Marshall Silverstein's excellent book:

Self psychology and diagnostic assessment: identifying selfobject functions through psychological testing. 

Is here.

Prof. Silverstein has two newer books:

"Disorders of the Self "

     In this book, he applies self psychological analysis to the ten DSM Axis II personality disorders, plus other conditions that lend themselves to self psychological understanding (e.g. depressive personality, somatization, and the vertical split).  The case studies for all of these areas are of adult or adolescent cases.  

And

"Personality Assessment in Depth"

This is a book of case studies using complete psychological test protocols, analyzing all responses.  This book is not based predominantly on self psychology.  The main thrust of the book is the complete analysis of integrating test results across different projective tests, using structural data and analysis of content.

A few words about using projective tests:

I'm aware of the criticism of projective tests.  But I perceive psychology as an integration of science and philosophy about human nature.  I think psychologists must know and use the newest evidence based approaches to assessment.   They also must look at the child, his personality and life circumstances in light of a philosophical 

viewpoint about human nature.

Each theory or body of knowledge that helps the 

psychologist reach insights about the child, that touch his heart and help him recruit the school staff and the family to the child's benefit - is good.  Good practical results for the child can be achieved through science in combination with a philosophical stance.  I suggest we recruit both ways for the child's benefit.

Therefore I suggest we assess the emotional world of the child using interviews with the child, his parents and teachers, observations, questionnaires (like ASEBA), projective tests and integrate all that with the information from the "cognitive" part of the assessment.

ניתוח מבחני סיפור סיפורים עפ"י תאורית הסלף - חלק שני

ניתוח מבחני סיפור סיפורים עפ"י תאורית הסלף -    חלק שני: אינדיקציות לצרכים של MIRRORING במבחני סיפור סיפורים.

החלק השני ממספר "פוסטים" בנושא זה, הבנויים על פי ספרו המצוין 

של   PROF. MARSHALL SILVERSTEIN –

Self psychology and diagnostic assessment: identifying 

selfobject functions through psychological testing. 

נמצא כאן.

אגב, לסילברסטיין יש שני ספרים חדשים יותר:

הראשון נקרא: 

 "Disorders of the Self "

בספר זה סילברסטיין מנתח על פי תאורית העצמי את עשר הפרעות האישיות על פי ציר II ב – DSM, וגם מיישם ניתוח זה למצבים של אישיות דכאונית, סומטיזציה וספליט ורטיקלי.  בספר מספר תיאורי מקרים שחלקם מבוססים על מבחנים השלכתיים.  כל המקרים הם של מבוגרים או מתבגרים.   

השני נקרא:

"Personality Assessment in Depth"

זהו ספר המתבסס בעיקר על תיאורי מקרים תוך שימוש בפרוטוקולים שלמים של מבחנים פסיכולוגים וניתוח של כל התגובות.  ספר זה אינו מבוסס בעיקר על תאורית העצמי.   

כמה מלים נוספות על השימוש במבחנים השלכתיים:

אני ערה לביקורת על השימוש במבחנים השלכתיים.  אך אני תופסת את הפסיכולוגיה כשילוב של מדע עם פילוסופיה על טבע האדם.  לדעתי פסיכולוגים צריכים להכיר ולהשתמש בדיאגנוסטיקה בגישות החדשניות ביותר, גישות מבוססות ראיות, ולצד זה להסתכל על הילד, אישיותו ונסיבות חייו מנקודת מבט פילוסופית על טבע האדם.

כל גוף ידע או תאוריה שמסייעים לפסיכולוג להגיע לתובנות על הילד שנוגעות ללבו שלו ומסייעות לו לרתום את צוות בית הספר והמשפחה לטובת הילד, הם טובים בעיני.  ניתן להשיג תוצאות מעשיות טובות עבור הילד הן בעזרת המדע והן בעזרת תפיסת עולם פילוסופית.  אני מציעה לרתום את שתי הדרכים לעזרתנו.

לכן אציע להשתמש להערכת התחום ה"רגשי – אישיותי" גם בראיונות עם הילד, ההורים והמורה, גם בתצפיות, גם בשאלונים (כגון אכנבך), גם במבחנים השלכתיים, וגם באינטגרציה עם המידע העולה מהחלק "הקוגניטיבי" של האבחון.

Understanding storytelling tests through self theory

Understanding storytelling tests through self theory

Here is the first out of 3-4 posts that take a look at Prof. Marshall Silverstein's approach to the interpretation of storytelling tests (I mean tests like TAT, CAT, HTP.  These will be the tests I'll refer to, but Silverstein interprets the Rorschach with this approach too). 

Prof. Marshall Silverstein

The approach is described in this book:

  

Self psychology and diagnostic assessment: identifying selfobject functions through psychological testing.  Reprinted 2009 by Routledge

The book is quite interesting.  I've read it twice. It adds theoretical depth to our work with projective tests.  Silverstein draws on Self psychology and shows how we can identify injuries to the self, lack of self cohesiveness, indications of mirroring, idealization and twinship needs, compensatory structures and defense mechanisms (vertical and horizontal splits) in projective tests.

My concise presentation of this approach, part1 of which is here, does not go into details about self psychology, beyond what's needed to understand its application to projective tests.  The presentation is based almost entirely on Silverstein's book, but I also drew from Zehava Osterweil's book "Open solutions" (I believe it's published only in Hebrew) and from other sources.

I'm no expert on this subject and present it from the viewpoint of an amateur, enthusiastic reader.

Some points I find important when working with projective tests:

·  In order to draw a well based conclusion we must see that the phenomena we've identified repeat themselves over several stories and are not found only in one story.  Good assessment practices (of the cognitive abilities as well) require us not to draw conclusions that are based on a single finding or on a thin evidence base.

·  Each child "speaks" a different theoretical "language".  Not every child's protocol will "speak" the self theory language.  Some children's protocols lend themselves to cognitive interpretations and these will be more fruitful than dynamic or other interpretations.

·   Stories can be conceptualized  through different  theories – family theories, narrative theories and more  -  according to the psychologist's taste and knowledge.  It's worth remembering, that an interpretation is a mirror of the psychologist's personality as much as the child's.  It enlightens the things the psychologist pays attention to, the things the psychologist finds important - not only the "objective truth" of the child.

·  It's important to think about the links between the findings from projective tests and from the child's cognitive tests.  It's worthwhile to think how the personality of the child, revealed to us through his stories, influences the ways in which the child processes cognitive information, and how the child's cognitive strengths and weaknesses influence the way he interprets the stimuli in projective tests.

Humoristic presentation - A new diagnostic look at the emotional world and its relationship with cognition

the presentation found here was given at a seminar in december 2013. It demonstrates different theoretical conceptualizations of the same TAT story.  It is not to be taken too seriously.