Defining projective techniques: Finding common ground for discourse

Sz~mmay.-In 2000 Lilienfeld, Wood, and Garb defined projective tests in a traditional yet loose manner. When a more precise and exclusive definition is hrnished, two classes of responses indicative of deviancy can be logically derived. It is suggested that a focused review of the literature yields consistent relations benveen psychopathology and two response types, falsifcations and misreprese~~~o~io~zs. provides common ground for recognizing a circumscribed core of' valid predictors across projective techniques.