Projective techniques have a lengthy and vital history in personality assessment, but they have evoked a minimal degree of interest on the part of counselors. Psychometric limitations, lack of training opportunities, and the obscure qualities of the instruments have restricted their use among practitioners. The author proposes a method to stimulate the use of projectives as an integral part of the counseling process and provides justification for the expanded use of the technique as a counseling tool.

Almost 50 years ago, Harold Pepinsky, a pioneer in the counseling profession (Claibom, 1985), urged counselors to use informal projective techniques in counseling as a means to advance the counseling relationship and to increase an understanding of clients (Pepinsky, 1947). Despite the greatly expanded role of the counselor, the increasing diversity of clients served, and the escalating challenge and complexity of issues facing the counselor, Pepinsky's early call has largely gone unheeded. Projective techniques in the counseling profession today are more commonly known for caution and prohibitions in using the instruments than for the potential benefits the devices offer as therapeutic tools (Anastasi, 1988; Hood Johnson, 1990). Given the urgency of equipping the counselor with as broad a repertoire of skills as possible, it is time to revisit Pepinsky's recommendation and to consider the role of projective methods in counseling. The purpose of this article is to review the qualities and practices of projective techniques, describe the value of projectives in counseling, suggest procedures for using the techniques in counseling, and illustrate applications of the methods with selected projective devices.

Distinguishing features of projective techniques include ambiguous directions, relatively unstructured tasks, and virtually unlimited client responses (Anastasi, 1988). These same open-ended characteristics contribute to a continuing controversy about the relative merit of the instruments. Projectives may be perceived as esoteric devices with subjectively determined evaluation procedures, particularly by counselors who seek empirically precise appraisal standards (Anastasi, 1988). A fundamental assumption of projective techniques is that the client expresses or "projects" his or her personality characteristics through the completion of relatively unstructured and ambiguous tasks (Rabin, 1981). A large number of projective instruments are available, including association (e.g., Rorschach tests), construction (e.g. , Tbematic Apperception Test), completion (e.g., sentence completion), expressive (e.g., human figure drawings), and choice or ordering (e.g., Picture Arrangement Test) (Lindzey, 1961).

The use of projective instruments assumes prerequisite psychological knowledge (Anastasi, 1988), with formal training and supervision (Drummond, 1992). Advanced course work is essential for some devices, including the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) (Hood Johnson, 1990), and computer-assisted and computer-adaptive testing (Drummond, 1988) is becoming more common. Training for counselors in projective techniques at the master's degree level is infrequent, with a clear majority of programs surveyed (Piotrowski Keller, 1984) offering no courses in projectives, although most of the training directors indicated that counseling students should be familiar with the Rorschach and the TAT. A recent study of community-based counselors suggests that licensed counselors are not frequent test users of either an objective or projective type (Bubenzer, Zimpfer, Mahrle, 1990). Counseling psychologists in private practice, community mental health centers, and counselors in hospital settings used projectives with relative frequency, but those in university and college counseling centers generally used objective assessments, with minimal employment of projectives (Watkins Campbell, 1989).

VALUE OF PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES IN COUNSELING

Although reservations about projective techniques may be recognized by researchers and practitioners (e.g., questionable psychometric qualities, a multitude of various types of devices, and considerable training required for most techniques), such issues are of less concern if projectives are used as informal, hypotheses-generating tools in counseling. This position will be amplified after examining how the skilled use of projective techniques may advance the counseling experience in ways that are both substantive and economical.

Enhancing the Counseling Relationship

As a component of the counseling process, projective techniques offer a means other than direct verbal disclosure for the client to express him-or herself. The projectives may be administered after a discussion about the purpose and application of the techniques. The client is asked to draw human figures, complete sentence stems, describe early memories, or partake in related approaches. The focus immediately shifts from the client's oral expression to the completion of a task, and interaction between the client and counselor occurs through an intermediate activity that elicits the involvement of the person. The instruments themselves are interesting to most individuals, and they offer a multimodal freedom of expression (Anastasi, 1988). While the client is completing the devices, the counselor is able to observe the person, make supportive comments, and offer encouragement. As a client responds to the ambiguous and relatively nonthreatening projective methods, his or her defensiveness often diminishes because of the participatory and absorbing nature of the tasks (Clark, 1991; Koruer, 1965). Pepinsky wrote about the projective effort by individuals: "The counselor has been able to employ these materials informally in the counseling interview, without making the client suspicious or hostile to what he might otherwise regard as an intrusion into his private world" (1947, p. 139).