Recommendations for training in the use of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 621-622

  Garb, Howard N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 11744340013     PISSN: 07357028     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.29.6.621.b     Document Type: Review

References (10)

1. Garb, H. N. (1984). The incremental validity of information used in personality assessment. Clinical Psychology Review, 4, 641-655.
2. Garb, H. N. (1989). Clinical judgment, clinical training, and professional experience. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 387-396.
3. Garb, H. N. (1994). Toward a second generation of statistical prediction rules in psycho-diagnosis and personality assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 377-394.
4. Garb, H. N. (1998). Studying the clinician: Judgment research and psychological assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Grove, W. M. (1997). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Submitted for publication.
6. Karon, B. P. (1981). The Thematic Apperception Test. In A. I. Rabin (Ed.), Assessment with projective techniques: A concise introduction (pp. 85-120). New York: Springer.
7. Rossini, E. D., & Moretti, R. J. (1997). Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) interpretation: Practice recommendations from a survey of clinical psychology doctoral programs accredited by the American Psychological Association. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 393-398.
8. Ryan, R. M. (1985). Thematic Apperception Test. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (Vol. 2, pp. 799-814). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
9. Stricker, G., & Trierweiler, S. J. (1995). The local clinical scientist: A bridge between science and practice. American Psychologist, 50, 995-1002.
10. Wade, T., & Baker, T. (1977). Opinions and use of psychological tests: A survey of clinical psychologists. American Psychologist, 32, 874-882.