Scribd
Upload
374 views2 pages

Diagnostic Applications of The Hand Test: Edwin E. Wagner

Uploaded by

Mike Pagaduan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
374 views2 pages

Diagnostic Applications of The Hand Test: Edwin E. Wagner

Uploaded by

Mike Pagaduan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

13

Diagnostic Applications
of the Hand Test
EDWIN E. WAGNER

1. Introduction
The Hand Test, a comparatively new projective technique, probably owes its clinical
utility to the following practical features: simplicity of stimulus material, brevity of
administration and scoring, and amenability to straightforward validation. The
test was first introduced in the form of a research monograph as a promising tech-
nique for predicting overt aggressive behavior (Bricklin, Piotrowski, & Wagner,
1962), but it soon became apparent that the instrument was suitable for general di-
agnostic purposes, and a Hand Test "kit" was put together, made up of the stimulus
cards, manual, and scoring tablet (Wagner, 1962b).
The stimuli consist of ten cards approximately 3~ by 4~ inches in size. Nine of
the cards portray simple line drawings of a hand in various ambiguous poses; the
last (tenth) card is blank. Reviewers have commented on the roughness of the ren-
ditions, but experience has shown that the artistic crudity actually has clinical merit:
normal subjects ignore the imperfections, while critical comments, when they do
occur, are apt to be evinced by negative or obsessive individuals.
The testee is handed the cards one at a time, right side up, and is simply requested
to "Tell me what it looks like the hand could be doing." When the last (blank) card
is turned over, the subject is asked to "Imagine a hand and tell me what it might be
doing." If only one response is given to the first card, the subject is prompted with
"Anything else?" If a hand is merely acknowledged or described, then the first time
this occurs the subject is reminded of the instructions with "What is it doing?" If
the subject cannot muster any response at all to a particular card, then, just once,
he is asked "Can you take a guessT' It is always permissible to ask for further elabora-
tion or explanation of a response with "Can you explain that?" or "Can you tell me
moreT' The initial reaction times to each card and the responses themselves are copied
verbatim on the special answer sheet or on any convenient piece of paper. Following

EDWIN E. WAGNER • Psychology Department, University of Akron, Akron, Ohio 44325.

393

B. B. Wolman (ed.), Clinical Diagnosis of Mental Disorders


© Plenum Press, New York 1978
394 the administration, the responses are scored and summarized. Median administration
time is approximately 10 min, and scoring takes about another 5 min.
EDWIN E. WAGNER

2.1. Basic Rationale and Scoring


The Hand Test was first developed in an attempt to reveal, for all subjects, ten-
dencies associated with the Rorschach human movement or M response. Piotrowski
had specified that the Rorschach M represents prototypal actions which are apt to
be expressed in behavior (Piotrowski, 1957, p. 141). However, not everyone pro-
duces M on the Rorschach, although the great majority of people do behave. There-
fore, it seemed advantageous to construct a projective technique which would di-
rectly epitomize the kind of behavior people habitually display. After the test was
tried on a number of nonplussed human guinea pigs (mostly patients, associates,
and relatives), it became obvious that the stimuli did evoke tendencies close to the
motor system, so much so that actions involving "things" as well as people were easily
obtained. It was also noted that, at times, difficulty in effectively relating to people
and/ or things due to incapacity of the hand and/ or inhospitable environmental
circumstances was projected; furthermore, some subjects, usually patients, were
unable to come up with meaningful action tendency at all, merely describing the
hand, visualizing bizarre percepts which were not in fact hands, or failing to respond
at all. Therefore, on both logical and empirical grounds, the following four major
scoring categories were derived: Interpersonal responses (INT) involving relations
with other people, Environmental responses (ENV) representing actions directed
toward impersonal objects, Maladjustive responses (MAL) reflecting difficulty in
successfully carrying out various action tendencies because of internal weaknesses
or external difficulties, and Withdrawal responses (WITH) representing an inability
to relate to the personal or impersonal world in a meaningful and effective manner.
Therefore, the Hand Test can be precisely defined as a projective technique which
elicits responses connoting the presence or absence of various prototypal action
tendencies necessary for relating to the world of reality.
The four major scoring categories were further subdivided into 15 basic scores
to further refine the action tendencies manifested by a given subject so that personal-
ity descriptions could be individualized and differential diagnosis maximized. As
is always the case when an attempt is made to reduce the implications and nuances
of projective responses to a set of scores, a compromise had to be achieved: too few
scores would fail to take advantage of the diagnostic potential of the instrument;
too many notations could become cumbersome and prohibitively difficult to learn.
The final 15 scores were compromises arrived at on the basis of conceptual clarity,
general familiarity (e.g., many of the terms are similar to those associated with the
Thematic Apperception Test), and differential implications for understanding per-
sonality and predicting behavior. The 15 categories are as follows:
A. Interpersonal
1. Affection (AFF): Interpersonal responses involving the interchange or
bestowment of pleasure, affection, or friendly feeling, e.g., "Shaking
hands with an old friend."
2. Dependence (DEP): Interpersonal responses which express or imply the
reception of or need for succor, e.g., "A beggar asking for a handout."
3. Communication (COM): Interpersonal responses in which information

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy