This article was downloaded by: [University of Dayton] On: 10 January 2015, At: 06:47 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Relationships Between Hand Test Variables and Maladjustment in School Children Mark J. Hilsenroth & Harry J. Sivec Published online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Mark J. Hilsenroth & Harry J. Sivec (1990) Relationships Between Hand Test Variables and Maladjustment in School Children, Journal of Personality Assessment, 55:1-2, 344-349, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674071 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674071
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1990, 55(1&2),344-349 Copyright s 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Relationships Between Hand Test Variables and Maladjustment in School Children Mark J. Hilsenroth and Harry J. Sivec Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
The University of Akron
Twenty-two Hand Test variables significantly differentiated a group of children referred to school psychologists for social and emotional maladjustment from a control group matched on age and sex. Eleven variables emerged from a subsequent stepwise discriminant analysis, resulting in a 80.85% hit rate. Results are interpreted as providing statistical support for the use of the Hand Test as a screening and/or ancillary projective technique in assessing school children.
In assessing the social and emotional adjustment of children, it has been recognized that projective techniques can offer significant contributions to an overall assessment (Blatt, 1975; Conti, 1983; Knoff, 1983a, 1983b; Lanyon & Goodstein, 1982). However, along with validity, school psychologists prefer instruments that are easy to score, make modest demands on training time, and expedite the assessment process (Prout, 1983). The Hand Test can be regarded as one such diagnostic technique inasmuch as the stimuli are simple and familiar (10 pictures of hands) and the subject is merely asked to describe what the hand may be doing. The responses are recorded verbatim on a Hand Test protocol sheet and then scored according to the Hand Test manual (Wagner, 1962, 1983). The entire process rarely exceeds 10 min. The test is especially suitable for use with youngsters because it is brief, nonthreatening, and does not require reading ability. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Hand Test is gaining in popularity among school psychologists as a projective technique that can be used for screening purposes (Bard, 1985; Prout, 1983). Wagner (1986) presented guidelines for distinguishing different types of childhood psychopathology with the Hand Test, and norms have recently been reported for an extreme group, severe behavior disordered (SBH) children
HAND TEST AND MALADJUSTMENT
545
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
(Wagner, Rasch, & Marsico, 1990); but so far there is little reliable information comparing Hand Test performance of normal versus problem children within the public school system. There are promising findings provided by Hoover (1977) who found many relationships between Hand Test scores and maladjustive behaviors in school children. Hoover's study, however, was vulnerable to statistical inflation due to many rs and small ns. In addition, the Hand Test's ability to assess acting-out tendencies in adolescents has been verified in numerous studies (e.g., Azcarate & Gutierrez, 1969; McGiboney & Huey, 1982; Oswald & Loftus, 1967; Wetsel, Shapiro, & Wagner, 1967). This study is designed to establish whether the Hand Test can differentiate between normal children and children referred to school psychologists for social and emotional maladjustment as a further step toward validating the test for use in the public school system.
METHOD Subjects were children enrolled in Grades 1-12 at a large midwestern public school system. Protocols of 94 children who had been referred to school psychologists fbr social and emotional maladjustment were compared to a control group of normal (nonreferral) school children individually matched for sex and age. School psychologists administered the tests but we independently reevaluated and rescored the protocols. There were 72 boys and 22 girls in each group; for both groups, the mean age was 9.35 with a standard deviation of 3.02. Social and emotional maladjustment was defined by the school system as repetitive, unsatisfactory behavior and included children who could be categorized as withdrawn-depressive, nervous-anxious, and aggressive-hostile. Admittedly social and emotional maladjustment is a rather broad rubric; nonetheless, it is the criterion used by the system and apparently has operational utility. For the 94 referrals, interscorer reliability between us was 89% across all scoring categories with an r of .86 for the pathology (PATH) score (we were blind to each others ratings). The 11% disagreement was resolved by a collaboration between us using the Hand Test manual (Wagner, 1983) as a reference. Correlated ts were computed to determine which Hand Test variables significantly discriminated the two groups. Then, the significant variables wcre entered into a discriminant analysis; the stepwise procedure was discontinuied when the significance level fell below .05. The correlated ts were computed filrst because the number of variables was too large for the sample size to attain accurate discrimination and because the primary focus of the procedure was not to obtain optimal statistical prediction but rather to understand in what manner individually significant variables would optimally combine to differentiate tlhe groups (Pedhazur, 1982).
346
HILSENROTH AND SIVEC
RESULTS
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
Twenty-two Hand Test variables significantly differentiated between the referred control groups (Table 1). When these variables were entered into a stepwise discriminant analysis the following scores were retained, ordered as follows: PATH, aggression (AGG), passive (PASS),immaturity (IM),cylindrical (CYL), number of responses (R), impotent (IMP), movement (M), obsessive-compulsive behavior (COMP), masculine (MASC), and affection (AFF). These 11 scores were able to correctly classify 80.85% of the subjects (Table 2). Most of the discrimination was provided by the first three or four variables, and the remaining seven should probably be viewed with some caution. Seventy-three percent discrimination was provided by the first three variables: PATH, AGG, and PAS.
DISCUSSION These results are not difficult to explain considering the implications of the scores. PATH, the first variable to emerge, is a summary denoting the total amount of psychopathology in the examinee's protocol; AGG indicates overtly hostile tendencies; PAS denotes a passive relationship to the environment; IM reflects normal immaturity in children; CYL suggests concern with male sexuality, not unusual in male adolescents; R or number of responses is an index of overall psychological reactivity to external stimuli; IMP suggests feelings of inadequacy. MOV connotes the random working off of excess energy and has been observed in hyperactive school children and violent institutionalized mental retardates (Panek, Wagner, & Suen, 1979); C O W is associated with obsessive-compulsive behavior; MASC denotes an awareness of gender differences and can be found in adolescents who are sensitive to role expectancies; and AFF reflects positive social feelings and action tendencies. Group differences for these variables were generally in the predicted direction and present a coherent constellation of maladjustive tendencies in school children (e.g., the referral group was higher on PATH and lower on AFF indicating more psychopathology and a lesser amount of emotionally positive feelings toward others). These results confirm the initial findings of Hoover (1977) and are also consonant with other studies reported in the literature. The first three variables emerging from the stepwise discriminant analysis, PATH, AGG, and PAS, are especially relevant because they have been shown to be related to acting-out behavior in juveniles and adults and can now perhaps be viewed as a maladaptive triad for socially and emotionally disturbed children (e.g., Azcarate & Gutierrez, 1969; Haramis &Wagner, 1980; Oswald & Loftus, 1967; Wagner, 1963, 1974).
TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlated t Values and Probabilities Comparing Socially and Emotionally Maladjusted Students (Referrals) With Matched Normal Controls on Hand Test Quantitative and Qualitativeavariablesb
-
Control
Referral
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
Variabk
M
SD
M
SD
t
AFF DEP COM EXH DIR AGG INT ACQ AclPAS ENV TEN CRP FEAR MAL DES FAIL BIZ WITH R ART H-L PATH AOS AMB CYL DEN HID IM IMP MOV ORAL PER SENS RPT FOOD MON PERS SNEAK BALL FEM MASC COW "Qualitative variables occurring in low frequency have been omitted. bN = 188. * p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005.
P
-
-
348
HILSENROTH AND SIVEC
TABLE 2 Variables Entered Into a Stepwise Disaiminant Analysis Differentiating Referrals Versus Controls Hand Test Variables PATH AGG PAS IM
UIP CYL R MOV MASC
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
AFF COW
F
Significance of Change
21.7617 20.3072 14.9400 11.4368 7.8773 8.1911 8.1401 5.0467 4.0665 4.0057 4.3042
.OOO 1 .0001 .0002 a009 .0056 .0047 .0048 .0259 .0452 .0469 .0395
Note. Correct Classification: 80.85%.
Interpretively, the PATH/AGG/PAS triad makes sense because PATH is an overall index of emotional disturbance, AGG denotes antagonistic interpersonal relationships, and PAS represents a nonproductive environmental attitude. Therefore, the child who comes to the attention of the school psychologist can be viewed as emotionally upset, hostile, and disinterested in school work, based on tentative extrapolations from the psychological meaning of these variables and their possible implications for schoolroom behavior. In this respect, it should be noted that withdrawal (WITH) can now probably be regarded as a more serious sign of emotional disturbance, more prevalent in children demonstrating extremely negative behavior patterns such as the SBH child (Wagner et al., 1990). Our results provide statistical support for the use of the Hand Test as a screening and/or ancillary instrument in assessing school children. Although the Hand Test is a projective test that should be used clinically and psychodynamically, it does appear to rest on a proven ability to make pragmatically useful discriminations among children attending public schools.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank E. M. Bard and Marcia Rasch for their assistance on this project.
REFERENCES Azcarate, E., & Gutierrez, M. (1969). Differences of institutional adjustment of juvenile delinquents with the Hand Test. lournal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 200-202.
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
HAND TEST AND MALADJUSTMENT
349
Bard, E. M. (1985, March). A n intmiew with Dr. Edwin E. Wagner. The Communique, p. 4. Blatt, S. J. (1975). The validity of projective techniques and their research and clinical contribution. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39,327-343. Conti, A. P. (1983). Implementing interventions from pro~ectivefindings: Suggestions for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 12, 435-439. Haramis, S. L., & Wagner, E. E. (1980). Differentiation between actmng-out and non-actingout alcoholics with the Rorschach and Hand Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 791-797. Hoover, T. 0.(1977). Relationships among Hand Test variables and Behavioral ratings of children. Dissertation Abstracts Internanonal, 37, 2509B. (University Microfilms No. 76-24, 406) Knoff, H. M. (1983a). Justifyingprojective/personality assessment in school psychology: A response to Batsch and Peterson. School Psychology Review, 12,446-451. Knoff, H. M. (1983b). Personality assessment in the schools: Issues and procedures for school psychologists. Schwl Psychology Review, 12, 391-398. Lanyon, R. I., & Goodstein, L. D. (1982). Personality assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. McGiboney, G. W., & Huey, W. C. (1982). Hand Test norms for disruptive black adolescent males. Perceptual &? Motor Skills, 54, 441-442. Oswald, O., & Loftus, P. T. (1967). A normative and comparative study of the Hand Test with normal and delinquent children. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 31, 62-68. Panek, P. E., Wagner, E. E., & Suen, H. (1979). Hand Test indices of violent and destructive behavior for institutionalized mental retardates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 376-378. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd led.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston. Prout, H. T. (1983). School psychologists and social-emotional assessment techniques: Patterns in training and use. School Psychology Review, 12, 372-383. Wagner, E. E. (1962). The Hand Test: Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Wagner, E. E. (1963). Hand Test content indicators of overt psychosexual maladjustment in neurotic males. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 27, 357-358. Wagner, E. E. (1974). Projective test data from two contrasted groups of exhibitionists. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 131-140. Wagner, E. E. (1983). The Hand Test Manual (rev. ed.). Los Angeles: Western PsychologicalServ~ces. Wagner, E. E. (1986). Hand Test interpretation for children and adolescents. In A. I. Rabin (Ecd.), Projective techniques for adolescents and children (pp. 279-305). New York: Springer. Wagner, E. E., Rasch, M. A., & Marsico, D. S. (1990). Hand Test characteristics of severely behavior handicapped children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 802406. Wetsel, H., Shapiro, R. J., & Wagner, E. E. (1967). Predictions of recidivism among juvenile delinquents with the Hand Test. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 31, 69-72.
Harry J. Sivec 5670 Cornell Boulevard North Ridgeville, OH 44039 Received July 18, 1989 Revised October 23, 1989 Mark J. Hilsenroth is now at The University of Tennessee. Harry J.Sivec is now at Ohio University.
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Relationships Between Hand Test Variables and Maladjustment in School Children Mark J. Hilsenroth & Harry J. Sivec Published online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Mark J. Hilsenroth & Harry J. Sivec (1990) Relationships Between Hand Test Variables and Maladjustment in School Children, Journal of Personality Assessment, 55:1-2, 344-349, DOI: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674071 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1990.9674071
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1990, 55(1&2),344-349 Copyright s 1990, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Relationships Between Hand Test Variables and Maladjustment in School Children Mark J. Hilsenroth and Harry J. Sivec Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
The University of Akron
Twenty-two Hand Test variables significantly differentiated a group of children referred to school psychologists for social and emotional maladjustment from a control group matched on age and sex. Eleven variables emerged from a subsequent stepwise discriminant analysis, resulting in a 80.85% hit rate. Results are interpreted as providing statistical support for the use of the Hand Test as a screening and/or ancillary projective technique in assessing school children.
In assessing the social and emotional adjustment of children, it has been recognized that projective techniques can offer significant contributions to an overall assessment (Blatt, 1975; Conti, 1983; Knoff, 1983a, 1983b; Lanyon & Goodstein, 1982). However, along with validity, school psychologists prefer instruments that are easy to score, make modest demands on training time, and expedite the assessment process (Prout, 1983). The Hand Test can be regarded as one such diagnostic technique inasmuch as the stimuli are simple and familiar (10 pictures of hands) and the subject is merely asked to describe what the hand may be doing. The responses are recorded verbatim on a Hand Test protocol sheet and then scored according to the Hand Test manual (Wagner, 1962, 1983). The entire process rarely exceeds 10 min. The test is especially suitable for use with youngsters because it is brief, nonthreatening, and does not require reading ability. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Hand Test is gaining in popularity among school psychologists as a projective technique that can be used for screening purposes (Bard, 1985; Prout, 1983). Wagner (1986) presented guidelines for distinguishing different types of childhood psychopathology with the Hand Test, and norms have recently been reported for an extreme group, severe behavior disordered (SBH) children
HAND TEST AND MALADJUSTMENT
545
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
(Wagner, Rasch, & Marsico, 1990); but so far there is little reliable information comparing Hand Test performance of normal versus problem children within the public school system. There are promising findings provided by Hoover (1977) who found many relationships between Hand Test scores and maladjustive behaviors in school children. Hoover's study, however, was vulnerable to statistical inflation due to many rs and small ns. In addition, the Hand Test's ability to assess acting-out tendencies in adolescents has been verified in numerous studies (e.g., Azcarate & Gutierrez, 1969; McGiboney & Huey, 1982; Oswald & Loftus, 1967; Wetsel, Shapiro, & Wagner, 1967). This study is designed to establish whether the Hand Test can differentiate between normal children and children referred to school psychologists for social and emotional maladjustment as a further step toward validating the test for use in the public school system.
METHOD Subjects were children enrolled in Grades 1-12 at a large midwestern public school system. Protocols of 94 children who had been referred to school psychologists fbr social and emotional maladjustment were compared to a control group of normal (nonreferral) school children individually matched for sex and age. School psychologists administered the tests but we independently reevaluated and rescored the protocols. There were 72 boys and 22 girls in each group; for both groups, the mean age was 9.35 with a standard deviation of 3.02. Social and emotional maladjustment was defined by the school system as repetitive, unsatisfactory behavior and included children who could be categorized as withdrawn-depressive, nervous-anxious, and aggressive-hostile. Admittedly social and emotional maladjustment is a rather broad rubric; nonetheless, it is the criterion used by the system and apparently has operational utility. For the 94 referrals, interscorer reliability between us was 89% across all scoring categories with an r of .86 for the pathology (PATH) score (we were blind to each others ratings). The 11% disagreement was resolved by a collaboration between us using the Hand Test manual (Wagner, 1983) as a reference. Correlated ts were computed to determine which Hand Test variables significantly discriminated the two groups. Then, the significant variables wcre entered into a discriminant analysis; the stepwise procedure was discontinuied when the significance level fell below .05. The correlated ts were computed filrst because the number of variables was too large for the sample size to attain accurate discrimination and because the primary focus of the procedure was not to obtain optimal statistical prediction but rather to understand in what manner individually significant variables would optimally combine to differentiate tlhe groups (Pedhazur, 1982).
346
HILSENROTH AND SIVEC
RESULTS
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
Twenty-two Hand Test variables significantly differentiated between the referred control groups (Table 1). When these variables were entered into a stepwise discriminant analysis the following scores were retained, ordered as follows: PATH, aggression (AGG), passive (PASS),immaturity (IM),cylindrical (CYL), number of responses (R), impotent (IMP), movement (M), obsessive-compulsive behavior (COMP), masculine (MASC), and affection (AFF). These 11 scores were able to correctly classify 80.85% of the subjects (Table 2). Most of the discrimination was provided by the first three or four variables, and the remaining seven should probably be viewed with some caution. Seventy-three percent discrimination was provided by the first three variables: PATH, AGG, and PAS.
DISCUSSION These results are not difficult to explain considering the implications of the scores. PATH, the first variable to emerge, is a summary denoting the total amount of psychopathology in the examinee's protocol; AGG indicates overtly hostile tendencies; PAS denotes a passive relationship to the environment; IM reflects normal immaturity in children; CYL suggests concern with male sexuality, not unusual in male adolescents; R or number of responses is an index of overall psychological reactivity to external stimuli; IMP suggests feelings of inadequacy. MOV connotes the random working off of excess energy and has been observed in hyperactive school children and violent institutionalized mental retardates (Panek, Wagner, & Suen, 1979); C O W is associated with obsessive-compulsive behavior; MASC denotes an awareness of gender differences and can be found in adolescents who are sensitive to role expectancies; and AFF reflects positive social feelings and action tendencies. Group differences for these variables were generally in the predicted direction and present a coherent constellation of maladjustive tendencies in school children (e.g., the referral group was higher on PATH and lower on AFF indicating more psychopathology and a lesser amount of emotionally positive feelings toward others). These results confirm the initial findings of Hoover (1977) and are also consonant with other studies reported in the literature. The first three variables emerging from the stepwise discriminant analysis, PATH, AGG, and PAS, are especially relevant because they have been shown to be related to acting-out behavior in juveniles and adults and can now perhaps be viewed as a maladaptive triad for socially and emotionally disturbed children (e.g., Azcarate & Gutierrez, 1969; Haramis &Wagner, 1980; Oswald & Loftus, 1967; Wagner, 1963, 1974).
TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlated t Values and Probabilities Comparing Socially and Emotionally Maladjusted Students (Referrals) With Matched Normal Controls on Hand Test Quantitative and Qualitativeavariablesb
-
Control
Referral
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
Variabk
M
SD
M
SD
t
AFF DEP COM EXH DIR AGG INT ACQ AclPAS ENV TEN CRP FEAR MAL DES FAIL BIZ WITH R ART H-L PATH AOS AMB CYL DEN HID IM IMP MOV ORAL PER SENS RPT FOOD MON PERS SNEAK BALL FEM MASC COW "Qualitative variables occurring in low frequency have been omitted. bN = 188. * p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005.
P
-
-
348
HILSENROTH AND SIVEC
TABLE 2 Variables Entered Into a Stepwise Disaiminant Analysis Differentiating Referrals Versus Controls Hand Test Variables PATH AGG PAS IM
UIP CYL R MOV MASC
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
AFF COW
F
Significance of Change
21.7617 20.3072 14.9400 11.4368 7.8773 8.1911 8.1401 5.0467 4.0665 4.0057 4.3042
.OOO 1 .0001 .0002 a009 .0056 .0047 .0048 .0259 .0452 .0469 .0395
Note. Correct Classification: 80.85%.
Interpretively, the PATH/AGG/PAS triad makes sense because PATH is an overall index of emotional disturbance, AGG denotes antagonistic interpersonal relationships, and PAS represents a nonproductive environmental attitude. Therefore, the child who comes to the attention of the school psychologist can be viewed as emotionally upset, hostile, and disinterested in school work, based on tentative extrapolations from the psychological meaning of these variables and their possible implications for schoolroom behavior. In this respect, it should be noted that withdrawal (WITH) can now probably be regarded as a more serious sign of emotional disturbance, more prevalent in children demonstrating extremely negative behavior patterns such as the SBH child (Wagner et al., 1990). Our results provide statistical support for the use of the Hand Test as a screening and/or ancillary instrument in assessing school children. Although the Hand Test is a projective test that should be used clinically and psychodynamically, it does appear to rest on a proven ability to make pragmatically useful discriminations among children attending public schools.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank E. M. Bard and Marcia Rasch for their assistance on this project.
REFERENCES Azcarate, E., & Gutierrez, M. (1969). Differences of institutional adjustment of juvenile delinquents with the Hand Test. lournal of Clinical Psychology, 25, 200-202.
Downloaded by [University of Dayton] at 06:47 10 January 2015
HAND TEST AND MALADJUSTMENT
349
Bard, E. M. (1985, March). A n intmiew with Dr. Edwin E. Wagner. The Communique, p. 4. Blatt, S. J. (1975). The validity of projective techniques and their research and clinical contribution. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39,327-343. Conti, A. P. (1983). Implementing interventions from pro~ectivefindings: Suggestions for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 12, 435-439. Haramis, S. L., & Wagner, E. E. (1980). Differentiation between actmng-out and non-actingout alcoholics with the Rorschach and Hand Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 791-797. Hoover, T. 0.(1977). Relationships among Hand Test variables and Behavioral ratings of children. Dissertation Abstracts Internanonal, 37, 2509B. (University Microfilms No. 76-24, 406) Knoff, H. M. (1983a). Justifyingprojective/personality assessment in school psychology: A response to Batsch and Peterson. School Psychology Review, 12,446-451. Knoff, H. M. (1983b). Personality assessment in the schools: Issues and procedures for school psychologists. Schwl Psychology Review, 12, 391-398. Lanyon, R. I., & Goodstein, L. D. (1982). Personality assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. McGiboney, G. W., & Huey, W. C. (1982). Hand Test norms for disruptive black adolescent males. Perceptual &? Motor Skills, 54, 441-442. Oswald, O., & Loftus, P. T. (1967). A normative and comparative study of the Hand Test with normal and delinquent children. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 31, 62-68. Panek, P. E., Wagner, E. E., & Suen, H. (1979). Hand Test indices of violent and destructive behavior for institutionalized mental retardates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 376-378. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd led.). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston. Prout, H. T. (1983). School psychologists and social-emotional assessment techniques: Patterns in training and use. School Psychology Review, 12, 372-383. Wagner, E. E. (1962). The Hand Test: Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Wagner, E. E. (1963). Hand Test content indicators of overt psychosexual maladjustment in neurotic males. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 27, 357-358. Wagner, E. E. (1974). Projective test data from two contrasted groups of exhibitionists. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 131-140. Wagner, E. E. (1983). The Hand Test Manual (rev. ed.). Los Angeles: Western PsychologicalServ~ces. Wagner, E. E. (1986). Hand Test interpretation for children and adolescents. In A. I. Rabin (Ecd.), Projective techniques for adolescents and children (pp. 279-305). New York: Springer. Wagner, E. E., Rasch, M. A., & Marsico, D. S. (1990). Hand Test characteristics of severely behavior handicapped children. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 802406. Wetsel, H., Shapiro, R. J., & Wagner, E. E. (1967). Predictions of recidivism among juvenile delinquents with the Hand Test. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 31, 69-72.
Harry J. Sivec 5670 Cornell Boulevard North Ridgeville, OH 44039 Received July 18, 1989 Revised October 23, 1989 Mark J. Hilsenroth is now at The University of Tennessee. Harry J.Sivec is now at Ohio University.
