journal of clinical psychology volume 1 issue 3 1945 [doi 10.1002/1097-4679(194507)1:33.0.co;2-m]...

7/27/2019 Journal of Clinical Psychology Volume 1 issue 3 1945 [doi 10.1002/1097-4679(194507)1:33.0.co;2-m] Joan W. Swift -- Relation of behavioral.pdf

1/10

R E L A T I O N OF B E H A V I O R A L A N D R O R S C H A C H M E A S U R E S OFI N S EC U R I T Y I N P R E S C H O O L C H IL D R E N *J O A N W. SWIFT, PH.D.

Iowa Child Welfare Research Station

The results of the matching of theRorschach records with personality de-scriptions based on behavioral observa-tions(% and clinical data(6) have beensuccessful enough to justify a morecareful analysis of some of the person-ality variables which go to make up thetotal personality picture. If the Ror-schach Method is to continue to grow inusefulness and range of applicability,the bases upon which Rorschach inter-pretations are made mu st be more care-fully defined and their relationship toother observable data determined.Those which can be shown t o be mean-ingful should be retained, and thosewhich prove to be of little value dis-carded. Many of the relationshipswhich have been found to be true foradults do not seem to hold fo r childrenat the preschool ages. I n order that thetest be of use with young children, it isobvious that this evaluation of separatevariables must be made for children aswell as for adults.According to Klopfer and Kelley ( 5 ,P. 196), the R orschach Me thod providesmaterial from which the followingstructural aspects of personality can bededuced :(1) The degree and mode of controlwith which the subject tries to regu-late his experiences and actions.(2 ) T he responsiveness of his emc-tional energies to s timulations fromoutside and promptings from with-in.* A selection from a dissertation submitted in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for thedegree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Depart-ment of Child Welfare in the Graduate Collegeof the State University of Iowa, August 1944.The study was carried out under the direction ofDr. Robert R Sears.

(3) His mental approach to given prob-lems and situations.(4) His creative or imaginative capaci-ties, and the use he makes of them.( 5 ) A general estimate of his intellec-tual level and the major qualitativefeatures of his thinking.(6) A general estim ate of the degree ofsecurity or anxiety of balance ingeneral, and specific unbalances.(7) The re lative degree of maturity inthe total personality development.Of these seven aspects of the struc-tural picture gained by the RorschachMethod, that of insecurity was chosenfor more ca refu l investigation for tw oreasons. I t is a term used both by Ror-schach workers and by clinical psychol-ogists. I t is obvious tha t if the results

o f the Rorschach test ar e to be used forclinical diagnosis, a common terminol-ogy mus t be employed. Unles s thechild diagnosed on the basis of the R or-schach findings as insecure is the samechild who is diagnosed as insecure onthe basis of clinical data another termshould be used in describing one or theother type of insecurity.The second reason for the choice ofinsecurity as the variable to be studiedwas that of its practical importance inclinical work. O ne of the first ques-tions to be asked regarding the abe rrantbehavior of a problem child is con-cerning th e basis of the problem. Is thisbehavior the direct reaction of the childto a difficult environmental adjustmentproblem, or is it an indirect expressiono f a more deep-seated insecurity,caused, for example, by a feeling ofbeing rejected by his parents in favorof a younger sibling ? I t is often diffi-


2/10

INSECURITY IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 197cult to determine from observation ofthe behavior itself w hat its symptoma ticsignificance is. T h is mu st be uncov-ered, however, if successful therapy isto be carried out. I t is possible to dis-cover these underlying or basic causesof behavior disorder by careful clinicalstudy of the case history, of other testresults, and of the behavior of the in-dividual under different conditions.Th is is often a long and tedious process,unnecessarily so for the treatment ofcases in which the behavior is just whatit seems on the surface: a healthy anddirect reaction to certain environmen-tal stresses. A test which could aid inmaking a differential diagnosis concern-ing fundamental security of the per-sonality would be of great value in suchcases.One of the first steps in evaluating atest variable such as insecurity is thatof determining its relation to behaviorvariables. T h e behavior variables inthe present study were chosen after areview of the clinical literature hadshown them t o be ones which were ofte nconsidered to be symptomatic of in-security or anxiety. Included amo ngthe measures were two sets previouslyquantified(47).

SUBJECTSFifty children, twenty-two boys andtwenty-eight girls enrolled in the Pre-school Laboratories of the State Uni-versity of Io w a served as subjects. T h eage range of the group was 4-0 to6-0; the average age was 5-1. T h eaverage I. Q. was 123, with a rangefrom 100 to 156. The selection of

children to be included in the stud y wasbased entirely upon their age (withinthe range of four to six years) an d theirschool attendance. No special attem ptwas made to include children who

showed extremes of behavior or whowere considered behavior problems.The number of children in the groupwho could be considered as behaviorproblems in any clinical sense was verysmall; only a few were considered bythe school to be in need of more caref ulpsychological stud y, an d none were con-sidered by their parents to be in needof outside help. T h is is, of course, insharp contrast with the type of childbrought to a child guidance clinic forhelp. METHOD

The measurement of insecurity basedupon the Rorschach Method was madein tw o ways. T h e first consisted of hav-ing an experienced Rorschach inter-preter rate the Rorschach records ofthe 50 subjects on a 13-point scale ac-cording to the amount of insecurityshow n by the total Rorschach configura-tion. T h e second consisted of deter-mining the presence or absence of anumber of Rorschach categories whichhave been considered to be signs of in-security or anxiety with adults andolder ch ildr en (33 . T he signs includedin the present stud y were as follows (thenormal or secure response is given inparentheses) :

(1) Relation between FC, C F and C(FC should equal or exceed CFand C).(2 ) Relation between Sum-C andF c +c +C (Sum-C should ex-ceed Fc + +C ) .( 3 ) Relation of M to FM (M shouldequal or exceed FM ).(4) Frequency of F responses ( Fshould not exceed 50 per cent).( 5 ) Presence of C (there should befew C responses).(6) Presence of pure C responses

1. The author wishes to express her apprecia-tion to Dr. Bruno Klopfer formaking the ratingsof Rorschach insecurity used in the study.


3/10

198 J O A N W. SWIFT(there should be not more than onepure C response).(7 ) Presence of K responses (thereshould be few K responses).(8) Presence of m responses (thereshould be few m responses).(9) Sum-C should exceed zero (thereshould be some responses usingcolor).(10) Nu mber of rejections (m or e thantwo cards should not be rejected).(11) Frequency of Popular responses(there should be at least fourPopular responses).

M a n y of these signs, alone and incombination with o ther facto rs, wereimportant in determining the ra t ings ofinsecurity that were made on the basisof the total Rorschac h record. By con-sidering each one separately it washoped to get a better measure of the i rclinical value.T h e signs of insecurity investigatedin the present study do not include allthat have been used in studies withadul ts and older children. M any ofthese could not be used here since theywere based upon categories which occureither so infrequently or so frequentlyin children's Rorschach records thatthey could not be considered diagnosticfor individuals.The Rorschach records included inthis section of the s tudy were admin-istered according to conventional pro-cedure(!~). In each case the Rorschachrat ings of insecurity were made on thebasis of the two Rorschach recordsgiven tw o weeks ap ar t ; the i tem analy-ses of the insecurity signs were madeon th e basis of a combined score fo r thetw o tests.*T h e data concerning the behaviorvariables considered to be symptom atic

2. The average number of responses givenhy preschool children is so small that twotests were felt to be necessary in order to gainan accurate picture of the personality. Cf. Swift,1944, p. 41, for a discussion of this problem

of insecurity were collected from twosources: (a) teacher rat ings on 15i tems of school behavior, and (b)parent interview material .The rating scales f i l led out by theteachers included the following i temsof behavior ?(1) Dependence upon o thers for atten-tion, approval, sup port or affection.(2 ) Fea r of ph ysical objects, animals,etc.(3) Fear of other children; timidityand hesitancy in approaching them.( 4 ) Incessant worry over trivial ornon-existent problems.( 5 ) Derogatory and critical attitudetow ards o ther children, their activi-ties or their accomplishments.(6) Reaction to criticism, whether justor unjust.( 7 ) Reaction t o failure.(8) Fearfulness and hesitancy in fac-ing a new situation.(9) Constant complaints of physicaldiscomfort or disability.

(10) Withdrawal from the group andindulgence in solitary play.(11 ) Refusal to comply when asked toperform some task, whether this isa routine or a special request.(12) General activity level : restless andhyperactive, o r listless and inactive.(13) Use of capacity.(14) Sensitivity to emotional stimula-tion.(15 ) Responsiveness to emotional stimu-lation.T h e ra tings were made on a graphicrating scale of the type described byCham pney(2). T hi s scale consisted of aseries of ten centimeter lines for eachitem representing the behavior dimen-sion to be rated.' A single line on th escale was used for each child. Ra ting swere made a t the point on the scalewhich represented the behavior mostcharacterist ic of the child. O n e modi-

3. For complete definitions of these items, andexamples of the type of behavior that are in-cluded in each case, see Swift, 1944.4. For a sample of the scale used, see Swift,1944.


4/10

INSECURITY IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 199fication of the Champney scale wasmade. An additional rating point(x) was added which was designed togive the rater an opportunity to makea judgment with regard to whether theseemingly adjusted behavior of the childwas a defensive or compulsive kind ofadjustment which would be symptom-atic of insecurity. This rating point,x, while it fell at the lower end ofthe graphic insecurity continuum, wasgiven a high insecurity rating. Theother ratings were scored in terms ofthe distance from the lower extreme ofthe rating scale. Certain cues for di f-ferent distances were given, but theraters were asked to make their judg-ments on the basis of the whole dimen-sion rather than in terms of the specificpoints used as cues.Each child was rated independentlyby two teachers who had had daily con-tacts with the child for a period ofseveral months. Since not all the chil-dren were members of the same pre-school group, it was necessary to includeratings by seven individuals, or fivepairs of raters (some teachers werefamiliar with more than one group ofchildren, and hence were able to ratetwo groups). This fact made the de-termination of reliability of the ratingsa difficult task, since the groups variedin size to such an extent that correla-tional procedures could not be applied.One group contained only five children,and the largest contained fourteen.Only a rough estimate in terms of thenumber of points of disagreement canbe given. On the 750 judgments made,76 per cent were within two points ofagreement (on an eleven point scale) ;4 pe r cent disagreed by more than fivepoints.The combined ratings of the twoteachers for each item were taken as the

childs score for that item. The use ofthe rating scales as a measure of be-havior was not felt to be entirely satis-factory but was the only method avail-able by which the data concerning thechilds school behavior could be col-lect ed.The data about each child collectedby means of a parent interview con-cerned the following factors :

( 1 ) The home situation ; family con-stellation, economic factors.( 2 ) Health history, and present healthstatus.( 3 ) Sleep habits, routines and disturb-ances.( 4 ) Eating habits; any problems con-nected with eating either in thepresent or in the past.( 5 ) Toilet training and present prob-lems connected with toilet habits.( 6 ) Demands for adult attention andhelp.(7 ) Readiness to cry when hurt, teasedor frustrated.(8 ) Fears, general and specific.(9) Nervous habits, past or present.

The parent interviews were con-ducted by the experimenter and wereheld in the home at a time when thechild was not present. In the majorityof the cases, the mother alone was inter-viewed; in one case the interview wasconducted with the father, and in fiveother instances both parents contributed.A special blank was used during theinterview for recording the informationobtained regarding home behavior(9).The factual material obtained wascopied onto cards, a single card beingused for each child for each of the nineitems. The behavior recorded on eachcard was rated in order to obtain aquantitative score representing theamount of insecurity shown by thechild. T o secure objectivity of judg-ment for the ratings, two experienced


5/10


6/10

INSECURITY IN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 201c ien t fo r th e home behav io r sco res an dthe Rorschach ra t ings of insecur i ty w asf o u n d to be +01.

(4) An a n a ly s i s wa s ma d e of th erelation between each of the single be-hav io r i t ems f r om the teacher ra t ingsca le and the Rorschach ra t ings of in-secur ity. T w o methods of analyzingthe data were used.a. Two subgroups were selected fromthe total gro up of ch ildren : one consistingof those children receiving extrem ely high'ratings on a given item an d those receivingextremely low ratings on that item. A nattempt was made to use only those chil-dren w hose behavior w as rated a s extreme(1 6 o r above, 6 or below) in these groups,but in some cases it was necessary to en-large or narrow this range in order to havegroups as nearly comparable in size aspossible. T h e average Rorschach ratingof the children in each of the tw o grou psw as com puted, an d the significance of t hedifference between these means was deter-

mined by a t-test. T he results are pre-sented in Table 1. T he number of sub-TABLE. Difference and Significance of D i f f e r -ence in Rorschach Ratings between ErtremeGroups on Teacher Ratings of Insecurity

N o . of Difference LeveI ofItem Subjects of Means Confidewe123456789101112131415

9, 34, 68, 137, 68, 811, 65, 96, 54, 108, 1012, 99, 510, 410, 410, 6

+1.2+0.5-1.2+ 224-1.7-1.1+2.0+1.1+1.14 . 7-1.4+1.6$1.14-0.9+02

3070....30%10%10%30%30%40%70%30%10%....3070........

jects in each of the two groups is given inthe first column ; n each case the numberin the high insecurity group is given first.6. High always refers to the scores showinga great amount of behavior considered syrnp-tomatic of insecurity.

T he second column gives the difference ofthe means for the two groups ; a positivedifference refers to one in which the highinsecurity group had a higher averageRorschach rating than did the low inse-cur ity group. T h e level of confidence withreg ard to th e significance of th e differenceof the means is given in column three.Significance was not tested for those itemswhere the d ifference between the meanswas less than 1. N o differences significantat or below the 5 per cent level of confi-dence were found.b. Two groups, representing the ex-tremes with respect to Rorschach inse-curity ratings, w ere selected from th e totalgroup of fifty subjects. T h e gr ou p show-ing high insecurity (ra tin gs of 9 or above)included seven children ; he low insecuritygroup (ra t ings of 3 or below) includedeight children. T he mean scores fo r thetw o grou ps on each of th e fifteen items ofthe teacher rating scale were computed.T h e significance of the differences foundwas tested (t-tes t) and the results ar e pre-sented in Table 2.TABLE. Diference and Significance of D i f f c r -ence in Tea cher Rating s between Extrem eGroups on Rorschach Ratings of Insecurity

( N = 7 , 8 )Difference Level ofI t e m of Means Confidence1 +1.2 70%2 -2.6 70903 +0.1 ....4 +1.4 50%5 +1.2 50%6 4 2 ....7 +2.0 60%8 4-0.6 ....9 $2.5 40%10 -1.9 m%11 -2.0 30%12 +0.5 ....13 +0.4 ....14 +0.2 ....15 0 ....

T h e first column gives the difference be-tween the means a nd the direction of thedifference with respect to each of the be-havior items. T h e second column givesthe level of confide nce of th e significanceof the difference found.


7/10

202 J O A N W. SWIFTNone of the differences was significantat or below the 5 per cent level of con-fidence.( 5 ) A similar type of analysis wasused to determine the relation betweenthe material gathered from the parent

interview and the Rorschach ratings ofinsecurity.

a. For each of the nine items of theparent interview, two groups were se-lected, one, of those children receivingthe highest and the other, of those receiv-ing the lowest ratings with respect to in-security. The mean Rorschach insecurityrating for each of the two groups was com-puted, and the significance of the differ-ences determined by applying a t-test. Aswas the case above, an attempt was madeto keep the groups comparable with regardto size and range. This was not alwayspossible.TABLE. Di ffer enc e and Significance of D i f f e r -ence in Rorschach Ratings between ExtremeGroups on Parent Interview Ratings of

InsecurityN o . of Difference Level ofItem SvBjects of Means Confidence

1 11, 31 4-0.7 ....2 12, 12 -1.8 20%3 9, 10 -1.2 4%4 11, 12 +0.1 ....5 10, 28 -0.3 ....6 15, 5 +0.2 ....7 14, 7 f 1 . 2 5%8 13, 8 0 f . . .9 12, 8 4 . 4 f . . .The results are presented in Table 3.The number of subjects included in eachof the groups is given in the first column,the difference between the means of thetwo groups in the second, and the level ofconfidence of the significance of the differ-ences in the third. Significance was com-puted only for differences larger than 1.Only one measure was found whichshowed a significant difference betweenthe children with respect to Rorschach in-security ratings, viz., item 7, readiness tocry.b. The two groups of children repre-

senting the extremes of the Rorschachrating distribution, described above, werecompared with respect to the ratings oftheir behavior on each of the nine itemsof the parent interview. The differencebetween the means for the two groups oneach of the items was computed, and thesignificance tested (t- test) . The resultsare presented in Table 4.TABLE. Diference and Significance of Difer-ence on Parent Interview Ratings betweenExtreme Groups on Rorschach Ratingsof Insecurity

( N = 7 , 6 )Difference Level ofItem of Means Confidence

+0.3-2.1-1.5+1.2+0.54-1.4+1.0-1.3+0.9

....a%30%40%40%50%30%

....

....~~~

No significant differences with respectto behavior were found between thoserated as high and those rated low in in-security on the Rorschach.(6) In order to determine the rela-tionship between each of the Rorschachsigns of maladjustment listed aboveand behavior symptoms of insecuritythe fifty children were divided into twogroups with respect to each sign,those showing the sign, and thosenot. Th e average scores were com-puted for each of these two groups with

respect to a) total parent interviewratings (items 3 to 9 inclusive) and b)total dependency scores (items 1, 2 , 3,4, 8 and 9 from the teacher ratingscale). The difference between the.means for those showing and those notshowing each sign were determined,and a test of significance applied to thelarger differences (those above 2 forthe home behavior ratings, and above 3


8/10

INSECURITY I N PRESCHOOL CHILDREN 203in the dependency rat ing s). T he results analysis was made from a differentfor ten of the insecurity signs a re pre- viewpoint : stimulus factors were meas-sented in Table 5. ured rather than response (or behavior)

TABLE. Comparison of Behavioral Insecitrity Scores of Children Showing and N otShowkg Rorschach S igns of InsecurityParent Interview Ratings Dependency Rat ings

N o . of S i & je c fs D i f f e r m c c L e ve l of Difference Level ofSign Showing Sign of Means Confidence of Means ConfidenceFC O ..............Color= ...........Pure C> ..........c> 0 ...............Rej.>2 ............

3893538201 18213416

-3.9-2.9+3.54-3.0-1.4+3.s+1.1+0.6-0.2-3.0

a%80%30%....

20%........20%

-2.1+3.3-6.8+8.4+6.91 . 3-11.1+s.2-5.70

....40%20%20%60%20%40%30%..

Fo r one sign, F%, he analysis w asnot mad e in this way. Since the medianF% for the group was 60, and therewas a continuum from 0 to 100 per centi t was felt that the presence or ab-sence method would not be as satis-factory as one in w hich the extremes ofthe distribution were compared. Th osechildren showing more than 75 per centF were selected for one extreme, whilethose showing less than 50 per cent Frepresented the other. T h e high F%group included ten children, the lowgroup eleven. T he average scores forthe two groups were computed withrespect to dependency and to home be-havior ratings. A difference of -17.2between the means of the groups forthe dependency ratings, and of -1.8for the home interview ratings wasfound. T h e forme r was significant atthe 2 per cent levkl of confidence. T h elatter was not significant. T h e childrenshowing a high F% were less dependentthan those showing a low F%.( 7 ) So far the analyses made havebeen between behavior or response fac-tors and the Rorschach measures. O ne

factors. A gro up of children who wererated on items 1 an d 2 of the parent in-terview as coming from good homesand having a long illness history werecompared with children coming frompoor homes who had had fewillnesses. A good home was defined interms of having the usual number ofmem bers, and with n o financial or socialtensions evident ; illness in such a situa-tion is usually connected with addedcare and affection. I t was felt, there-fore, that in this combination of factorsa greater degree of security would bebuilt up than would be the case wherethe home was such that security factorswould be absent and good health wouldhave precluded the necessity for specialevidences of attention and affection.E ig ht children fulfilled the criteria ofa low rating on item 1 (home) with ahigh rating on item 2 . Only fourshowed the opposite ratio : high ratingon 1, with low rating on 2. T he aver-ag e Rorschach rati ng of insecurity f orthe secure group was 4 ; the averagefor the insecure group was 8. Thisdifference was found to be significant

d d


9/10

204 J O A N W. SWIFTbelow the 1 per cent level of confidencewhen a t-test was applied.

DISCUSSIONF RESULTSThe results indicate that there is nodirect relationship between the amountof insecurity measured by the Ror-schach and the behavior variables w hichwere included in the present study assymptomatic of insecurity. N o r was adirect relationship found between be-havior characterized as insecure and theRorschach measure. Mo re hopeful datawith regard to validation of the Ror-schach measure of insecurity werefound when situational or stimulusfactors were used as criteria(cf. 1,,8).Further investigation of this type ofapproach should be made.It is possible that the use of straightbehavior items without regard to thepart played by each in the personalityand adjustment of the individual childobscured the real issue. It was recog-nized when the experiment was designedthat no single behavior item shown inextreme fo rm was necessarily a sign ofinsecurity. I t was felt, however, th atby combining all those items which areoften symptomatic of insecurity, thoseindividuals who were basically insecurewould earn a higher score than wouldthose who were not. It is possible tha tsumming all the behavioral indices ob-scured rather than highlighted the dif-ferences, however, and that insecurechildren do not show extremes of be-havior in a number of items but only incertain ones, ones which a re specific fo rthe child but not specific for the groupof insecure children a s a w hole.A qualitative analysis of the person-ality descriptions of those children ratedas insecure on the basis of the Ror-schach revealed that almost all of themshowed certain extremes of behavior

which seemed indications of insecurity,but these signs were not limited to themnor were they constant fo r the group ofinsecure children. Insecure behavioroften appeared (in terms of the Ror-schach picture) to be acting as an ou t-let or expression of insecurity or anx-iety feelings, thereby relieving the in-dividual of tensions which mightseriously affect later adjustment. Ifthis hypothesis is valid, a high insecurityrating on the Rorschach should havepredictive value for fu tur e adjustment :i.e., those children who have been ableto find outlets for their feelings of in-security and have adopted means ofcompensating for or overcoming them,will make a better adjustment when theymeet problems later, than will those chil-dren who have been unable to find suchoutlets. T h e relationship found betweenF% and dependency scores tends tosupport this hypothesis. Th ose chil-dren who were able to express them-selves with greatest spontaneity on theRorschach (thereby earning a low F%)were the children able to express in-secure behavior directly.I n evaluating the results of the pres-ent study, it should be kept in mind thatthe children used as subjects were allnorm al children. Non e showed ex-treme aberrations that might be consid-ered indicative of a serious disturbance.It is possible that within this range thedifferences in behavior manifestationsare not great enough to distinguishindividuals significantly.

SUMMARYT h e present study wa s designed to in-

vestigate the relationship between asingle personality variable, viz., in-security as measured by the RorschachMethod and behavior considered clin-ically to be symptomatic of it. F if ty


10/10

INSECURITY IN PRESCHOOL C H I L D R E N 205preschool children, ranging in age from4-0 to 6-0, were used as subjects. Dataconcerning the Rorschach measure ofinsecurity were obtained from twosources : l ) , ratings of insecurity madeby an experienced Rorschach interpreteron the basis of two complete Rorschachrecords of each child, and Z), quantita-tive analysis of the Rorschach recordsin terms of eleven signs of in-security or maladjustment. Data con-cerning behavior were collected bymeans of 1) a teacher rating scale cov-ering 15 items of school behavior, and2 ) a parent interview, concerned withnine items of home behavior.

The results indicate that there is nodirect relationship between the amountof insecurity measured by the Ror-schach and the behavior variables whichwere included in the present study assymptomatic of insecurity. More hope-ful data with regard to validation of theRorschach measures of insecurity were

found when situational or stimulusfactors were used as criteria.

BIBLIOGRAPHY1. A R S E N I A N ,. M. 1943. Young children inan insecure situation. J . Abn. SO C. sychol.,38: 225-249.2. CHAMPNEY,H. 1941. Measurement ofparent behavior. ChiM Developtn., 12: 131-166.3. DAVIDSON,. H., 1943. Personality an deconomic background. New York :KingsCrown Press.4 . HACMAN,. R. 1932. A study of fears ofchildren of preschool age. I. ESP. Educ.,5. KLOPFER, ., and KELLEY,D. M. 1942.The Rorschach Technique. YoAers-on-Hudson, N. Y.: World Book Company.6. KRUGMAN,. 1942. A clinical validation ofthe Rorschach with problem children.Rorschach Res. Exch., 6 :61-70.7. PRICHARD,., and OJE MA NN ,. 1941. Anapproach to the measurement of insecurity.8. SHIRL EY, . 1942. Childrens adjustm entsto a strange situation. J.Abn. S O C. sychol.,9. SWIFT, J. W. 1944. Applicution of theRorschach Method to preschool children.Ph.D . Thesis. State University of Iowa.Iowa City, Iowa.

1 : 110-130.

J. ESP. Educ., 10:114-1 18.37: 201-217.

journal of clinical psychology volume 1 issue 3 1945 [doi 10.1002/1097-4679(194507)1:33.0.co;2-m]...

Documents