Think.. outside the box because it is like a prison. Break free! Allow your imagination to soar above your walled confine and reach for that bright star of insight. Think of a tree. It grows outside the box and bears fruit only the bold will taste.
We are an independent medical research center dedicated to excellence and progress in mental status research, suicide prevention, and PTSD treatment through the clinical use of mental imagery. Welcome to Roadmind University Online.
“Here is your landslide, I’ve written it just for you, all the mountains you’re traveling through..”
Sebring, OH: Community Returning Veteran PTSD Program
Little Sebring, OH is gearing up to offer its returning veterans a program of great importance. Robert Roerich, MD and Darla Hough have received approval from the local American Legion to use their space and resources for the first veteran and veteran family support group, tentatively called Veteran Freedom Fighters of America. Kick-off meeting is on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 from 7-9 p.m. All veterans and military family members are encouraged to participate in this program which will meet the 2nd Monday of every month (with an option to have additional meeting and support groups to be determined by its members). Contact ‘Doc’ Roerich if you have any questions.
Click on ‘Article Link’ below tags for map and directions, agenda, etc…
Sebring is a village of approximately 5,000 people in Mahoning County of northeastern Ohio. It is 5 miles east of Alliance, Ohio and 10 miles west of Salem, Ohio. I’m pleased to share preliminary details of their inspiring Veteran Freedom Fighters of America program (please check back for any additional updates as I receive them):
Kick-off meeting is on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 from 7-9 p.m. All veterans and military family members are encouraged to participate in this program which will meet the 2nd TUESDAY of every month (with an option to have additional meeting and support groups to be determined by its members).
American Legion Post #76
395 W California Ave
Sebring, OH 44672
Tom Noble- Commander
Ed Hartman- Vice Commander
Phone the American Legion Post # 76, Sebring, Ohio at (330) 938-9082 for driving directions to the post.
The Veteran Freedom Fighters of America (VFFA) support network was founded by a veteran’s wife and a psychiatrist who saw a growing need to provide a community based support network for our returning military back from Iraq and their families. With many veterans experiencing increased stress in the aftermath of war, a critical need was identified to help heal the unseen wounds of war by providing timely support. It takes a village to help our warriors transition from military to civilian life free of the social stigma of suffering from mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and suicidal or homicidal acts.
A key component of fighting for mental peace of mind is knowing when there is a problem in relationships with friends and family. VFFA will help veterans and families fight for themselves, armed with knowledge of what problems can occur. The support group will not judge or stigmatize anyone but provide a nurturing, healing environment in order to truly return home.
I. Welcome by Darla Hough and Robert Roerich. Introductions among attendees of the meeting.
II. Informal discussion and timeline of what problems can occur with returning military and their families. Feedback of what members have experienced if they wish to share with the group.
III. Survey of what resources group members would want in the group, which may include:
- Printed and digital information handouts on depression, PTSD, and suicide for personal use.
- Distribution of a support group work book for member’s use.
- Information on problems with spouse or significant other and children affected by a veteran with PTSD.
- Stress management
- Anger management
- Resource manual for families on financial assistance, filing disability claims from the VA, health care and referrals to outpatient, hospital and crisis hotlines.
- Setting up peer and family support groups with group facilitator.
- Social activities and group functions, fund raisers, grant applications.
- Outreach and networking with others at the local, regional, state and national level to set up veteran and veteran family support networks.
American Legion Post #76 will send out an invitation to their members in their newsletter informing them of their support in setting this veteran and veteran family community support network. A Salem, Ohio newspaper and others may also run a news story about this.
It is not necessary to contact anyone before coming, but if there are questions about the support network, ‘Doc’ Roerich will post about it on www.roadmind.com which has an announcement about this meeting. Additionally, you may contact the American Legion at (330) 938-9082 for directions or email ‘Doc’ at Roadmind University if you have any questions.
As the VA struggles to meet the increasing needs of our returning troops (alongside taking care of the those who’ve served in prior eras) more and more local and state efforts are being made to reach out and offer assistance. Programs like the one started up in Sebring, OH are vital to augment programs offered by the VA, providing yet another option and safety net for our returning troops and their families.
As Dr. Roerich says, “With the VA overwhelmed, understaffed and underfunded, getting the word out on the grass roots effort of concerned citizens and families to set up community based support networks in every hometown in America.”
Other local communities are pitching in to help their returning troops in targeted and unique ways including those found in Minnesota, Oregon, and New Jersey and Philadelphia to name a few.
Kudos to them all. And here’s to seeing more of this kind of thing pick up steam!
PTSD RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT
I am conducting clinical research with military veterans, police officers, fire fighters and first responders diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). I am actively seeking 60 research participants and their therapists. Click on the red apple to go to the PTSD clinical trials research website for more information or view New: below.
Robert M. Roerich, M.D.
New: PTSD CLINICAL TRIALS RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT
“A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.” -Thucydides Greek historian (471 BC – 400 BC)
“I was originally supposed to become an engineer, but the thought of having to expend my creative energy on things that make practical everyday life even more refined, with a loathsome capital gain as the goal, was unbearable to me.”
“Experts are just trained dogs.”
“Best brand of generic sildenafil citrate is kamagra “
“I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.”
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.”
“Think outside the box. Your imagination is a preview of coming attractions.” Albert Einstein
“The biggest reason I did this interview is because I want people to know that PTSD is not something people come down with because they’re crazy. It’s an anxiety disorder, where you’ve experienced something so traumatic that you were close to death.”
“A lot of Vietnam vets suffered from PTSD, but nobody took the time to understand or help them. Now, some of those guys are living on the street. You look at their situation, and you think about what they did for their country and where they are now … that hurts.”
Source: ” Famous Face, Humble Heart” by Jim Warren, HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER, Sun, Jan. 15, 2006
Online university for prevention of suicide launched
A psychiatric researcher has launched an online university to help prevent suicide, according to a Dec 27, 2002, news release from PR Newswire. The university can be found at http://www.roadmind.com. Access to the site is free.
The purpose of this site is to help people understand their mental imagery, which will in turn help reveal their hidden emotions and life conflicts. A Freudian-based psychological test taps into the user’s unconscious by asking the user to describe what he or she sees on an imaginary journey. Users receive immediate, candid explanations of the images.
Preventing Suicide Goal of New Online University (news release, Steubenville, Ohio: PR Newswire, Dec 27, 2002) http://www.prnewswire.com (accessed 29 Dec 2002).
Child Psychologist David L. Weatherford, Author of “Slow Dance”, shares a treasure of excellence.
Why is publishing research online important?
Read Online or Invisible? Edited version appears in: Nature, Volume 411, Number 6837, p. 521, 2001.
Below is the joint American, Romanian pilot research study authored by Robert Roerich and Stefan Lita, each from their respective countries.
It may be difficult to understand how a new mental imagery psychodynamic test and interview (the RPI) could be compared to a neuroticism model in vogue with psychologists to assess personality. Mental imagery appears to be the basic framework by which the mind functions to internalize external life events as memory. The Big Five Model of neuroticism is an artificial classification system developed by psychologists. It can easily be falsified, but that does not necessarily make it scientific.
How can this be proven statistically? We call upon the World Health Organization to study police suicide rates in Romania before and after use of the RPI research.
In order to understand the RPI, it is helpful to experience it by first taking the online stress test linked above at the top of the center column. Not to do so is like talking about car repair without ever having seen a car, much less worked on one.
Use of the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory (RPI) in Law Enforcement Settings
Abstract: Despite evidence that mental imagery is an important determinant of behavior, relatively little attention has been paid to the role of mental imagery in the assessment of emotional adjustment. This study examines initial data from a sample of 221 police applicants and 72 active-duty officers whose stress levels were measured using conventional scales and then a mental imagery inventory, the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory (RPI). Correlations between the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory and the conventional scales show that the RPI offers a reliable indicator of emotional dysfunction without sacrificing social desirability.
Key words: emotional issues, mental imagery, Roadmind, convergent validity.
One of the greatest challenges in evaluating a person’s mental status is determining the truthfulness of the information reported to the clinician. This is especially true in law enforcement settings, where officers are known to guard against disclosure of feelings that may make them appear less than perfect to the interviewer (Golfarb, 2000). The psychologist using standard interview techniques may never know that the officer is having trouble sleeping, or is sleeping too much, is eating too little or too much, or does not have enough energy to function. Therefore, severe depression may go undiagnosed, and in the worst cases, officers may become suicidal or homicidal.
Law enforcement is one of the top-rated professions for job stress, and has shown to be high risk not only in terms of physical danger, but also in the potential to develop “attitudinal problems, behavioral problems, and intimacy and relationship problems” (Aumiller, 2000). But for a police officer, possibly the most difficult aspect of staying healthy is admitting that he or she has a problem, and then seeking help. For this reason, police psychologists are always looking for new, subtler methods of assessing officers’ mental health.
The Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory (RPI), also referred to as the Roadmind, is a five-component model developed by Dr. Robert Roerich that indirectly measures stress and emotional health using mental imagery during a clinical interview. The subject is told to imagine walking on a road and then is asked to describe what he sees and does as he crosses a river, arrives at a house, discovers a cup, and meets an obstacle.
Component 1: The Road
The initial description of the road indicates the general outlook on life. The color of the road can be seen as a kind of “color of my life.” This is the respondent’s general mood. The texture and solidity of the road indicate the respondent’s present sense of difficulty in life.
Component 2: Crossing the River
The river crossing reveals information about intimacy. The manner of crossing the river indicates the capacity to trust another in an intimate relationship. The cleanliness of the water is a self-indication of how honest the relationship is. It can also reveal the manner in which the respondent feels he is treated in intimate relationships. The speed of the current indicates the pace of the respondent’s involvement in intimacy. Objects in the water are additional characteristics of intimate relationships.
Component 3: The House
The house indicates the strength of the respondent’s support system. The color of the house reflects the respondent’s perception of his support. The condition of the house reflects his opinion of how much support he needs. Whether the house is inhabited or not tells us the state of his self-esteem.
Component 4: The Cup
The description of the cup lying in an open field illustrates the respondent’s attitude toward committed relationships. The color of the cup describes the emotional tone of the relationship. The condition of the cup reflects the respondent’s opinion of the general state of the relationship. The liquid in the cup indicates commitment to a person or thing other than the original commitment.
Component 5: The Obstacle
The obstacle in the road symbolizes the most important emotional problem in the respondent’s life. It is the “central conflict” of psychoanalysis. What is beyond the obstacle indicates the future orientation, that is, the future the respondent sees for himself.
This study examines initial data from a sample of 221 police applicants and 72 active-duty officers whose stress levels were measured using both conventional scales and Roerich’s mental imagery inventory. Correlations between the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory (RPI) and the conventional scales show that the RPI offers a truer indicator of emotional dysfuntion without sacrificing social desirability.
The Study of Mental Imagery in Psychology
Clinical work thus far has suggested that mental images can be good indicators of mental health, quantitatively by pointing out stress levels, and qualitatively by revealing hidden emotional issues (Roerich, 1995). However, despite the substantial number of studies in the area, there is no agreement on the measurement of emotional problems using mental imagery techniques.
The study of imagery in psychology grew with the rise of cognitivism in the 1960s and ’70s, when new techniques were developed that enabled a truly experimental study of the method. For over three decades, the concept of mental imagery has attracted considerable attention in the study of human psychology. The concern with mental imagery stems mainly from the impact it is believed to have on human behavior or mental health. Mental imagery (sometimes colloquially called visualization, or “seeing in the mind’s eye”) is an experience that resembles perceptual experience, but which occurs in the absence of the appropriate stimuli for the relevant perception (Finke, 1989; McKellar, 1957). Very often, these experiences are understood by their subjects as echoes or reconstructions of actual perceptual experiences from their past; at other times, they may seem to anticipate possible, often desired or feared, future experiences. The study of mental imagery has generated interest especially in sports, where different uses include: mental practice of specific performance skills, improving confidence and positive thinking, problem-solving, controlling arousal and anxiety, performance review and analysis, preparation for performance, and maintaining mental focus during injury (Feltz, Landers, 1983). Not only can mental imagery improve specific motor skills, but it also seems to enhance motivation, mental toughness, and confidence, all of which help to elevate human performance (Martin, Hall, 1995).
Personality psychologists have dedicated a great deal of research to the role of mental imagery in human behavior. It has been widely assumed that mental imagery influences expectations of future success and affective reactions to achievement outcomes. Investigators have also found that mental imagery plays a very large, even pivotal, role in both memory (Yates, 1966; Paivio, 1985) and motivation (McMahon, 1973).
Despite the evidence that mental imagery is an important determinant of behavior, relatively little attention has been paid to the role of mental imagery in the assessment of emotional adjustment. The purpose of this study was to determine if Roerich’s inventory is a reasonable and adequate measure of emotional problems which can be used in the psychological assessment of law enforcement personnel. Our study evaluates Roerich’s fifteen-item version in Romania, a society not quite different from the Western context. The results of the study also address the cross-cultural applicability of Roerich’s tool.
A Note about Translating Psychological Instruments
There are some methodological problems which need to be clarified about the use of a translated psychological instrument. The application of an instrument in a new cultural group involves more than simply producing texts in another language, administering the translated instrument, and comparing the results, because the adequacy of translation can be threatened by various sources of bias (Humbleton, 1993). To eliminate these biases, the development of a psychologically acceptable instrument for other cultural groups almost always requires more effort than a literal translation. An instrument which is translated into a target language has to be followed by an independent back-translation. After a comparison of the original and back-translated versions, possibly followed by suitable revision, the instrument is applied to the source and target cultures (Brislin, 1980). The Roadmind was carefully translated from the English version into Romanian. Three experienced psychologists then modified the translation on the basis of a review. We paid careful attention to minimizing the problems inherent in simple translation, such as linguistic or psychometric nonequivalence. A translator who was proficient in both Romanian and English carried out back-translation on the final Romanian version. A comparison of the original and back-translated items indicated that the two were in substantial agreement.
The first study measured individual differences in emotional responsiveness from a mental imagery perspective. The most important objective of the study was to investigate correlations between the RPI and other tests. We assumed that if Roerich’s instrument represents an emotional adjustment evaluation, we must find a significant correlation between this score and the value of other indicators of emotional adjustment. Here we will present the results obtained in a pilot study on a Romanian population. This is the first component of a larger project aimed at validating the RPI.
We examined the correlation between personality traits and mental imagery symbols. We then assessed the covariation between a direct self-description method of psychological assessment and a subtle mental imagery journey. Finally, we examined the impact of mental imagery on the respondents’ self-descriptions.
Sample and Procedure
In this study, we used the contrasted group method to perform a monotrait-multiquestionnaire study of the personality risk factors for stress in police officers. The site for the study was the Police Department Special Forces (Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT)) belonging to the Romanian Ministry of the Interior. The sample consisted of 72 respondents, all male active-duty officers, with a mean age of 30 years and a standard deviation of 5 years.
First, we compared stress index scores from the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory with scores from other inventories that assess components of stress. Then, the study design (Figure 1) called for the division of the subjects into two groups, one with a high stress index and the other with a low stress index. The mean of the RPI stress index was used as a cutoff score to form the two groups.
We used a quantitative interpretation system to score each respondent’s stress index as revealed by Roerich’s inventory (also referred to as the Roerich Index (RI)) and then we divided the subjects into two equivalent groups based on the mean of the stress index. We then compared most of the determinants with the Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) Questionnaire and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS), since their psychometric properties are well established. The 16PF is a self-report instrument that measures the sixteen normal adult personality dimensions identified by Dr. Raymond Cattell; using dimensions discovered through factor analysis, the 16PF assesses the whole domain of human personality. The questionnaire is used for professionals in a wide range of counseling and consulting settings to predict a wide range of life behaviors. Similarly, the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey is a self-report inventory designed to measure normal personality and temperament. It provides a nonclinical description of an individual’s personality characteristics for use in career planning, counseling, and research. The GZTS can be useful in identifying persons who may have trouble adjusting to particular environments and the types of problems they may encounter, and also in revealing temperamental trends that may be the source of problems and conflicts in relationships.
First, we compared data using analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques, in order to evaluate the differences between personality profiles of those who obtain a low stress index with those who obtain a high stress index.
Second, we analyzed the data using Pearson correlations in order to discover what correlations exist between the stress index obtained using RPI and those of other scales that assess components of stress.
Table 1 shows the results. The mean of the Roerich Index is between 12 and 13, with a standard deviation of 3; therefore, a score of 16 could be interpreted as an indicator of emotional problems.
Table 1: Descriptive data for the RPI stress index (or Roerich Index),
obtained using a police special forces sample
|RPI scores||Frequency||Valid Percent||Cumulative Percent|
Table 2: Frequency of RPI stress index scores Correlations between the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory (RPI) and Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) Questionnaire
Our first prediction was that there should be an interaction between (traumatic) mental imagery symbols and (negative) self-description, so that those with positive mental images would rate themselves more favorably using a self-description questionnaire and those with negative mental images would rate themselves less favorably.
The mean displayed in the table supports our prediction. The standard deviation of the mean was reliable, including emotional stability (F=6.882, p=0.011) and tension (F=3.694, p=0.059). Using analysis of variance (ANOVA), we compared the mean of those two groups, formed by using the stress index criterion, and observed that were two significant differences (at factors C and Q4), as shown in Table 3. These affirm that subjects with high levels of stress (measured using RPI) also have low levels of emotional stability and higher internal tension (measured using 16PF).
|Group withLow-Level Stress (N=37)||Group withHigh-Level Stress (N=35)|
|Factors||Mean||S. D.||Mean||S. D.||F||Sig.|
|A – Warmth||13.16||2.97||12.77||2.10||0.411||0.523|
|B – Reasoning||9.46||1.35||9.86||2.00||0.988||0.324|
|C – Emotional Stability||21.05||2.99||18.80||4.23||6.882||0.011|
|E – Dominance||11.08||2.55||11.80||3.68||0.934||0.337|
|F – Impulsivity||13.81||3.35||12.49||3.10||3.027||0.086|
|G – Superego strength||14.68||3.27||15.20||2.62||0.559||0.457|
|H – Boldness||18.38||3.83||18.60||3.66||0.063||0.803|
|I – Sensitivity||8.65||2.82||8.97||3.48||0.188||0.666|
|L – Trust||7.46||3.83||7.49||2.33||0.001||0.972|
|M – Imagination||12.27||3.11||11.89||2.85||0.298||0.587|
|N – Shrewdness||10.49||2.77||10.06||2.70||0.444||0.508|
|O – Confidence||4.84||3.79||6.20||3.42||2.554||0.115|
|Q1 – Radicalism||9.95||2.45||9.40||2.57||0.852||0.359|
|Q2 – Self-sufficiency||8.08||2.76||7.83||2.50||0.165||0.686|
|Q3 – Self-sentiment||16.05||2.41||15.40||1.99||1.564||0.215|
|Q4 – Tension||6.03||2.67||7.43||3.48||3.694||0.059|
Table 3: The differences between global scales, depending on stress index level
The analyses of the scores obtained by subjects tested using the RPI and 16PF showed 2 significant correlations, at a 0.05 level of signification, between the Roerich Index and factors C and M from 16PF. In other words, when the level of emotional problems is rising (measured using RPI), we can observe two meaningful modifications on 16PF scales (Table 4):
Emotional stability is decreasing (C-)
Imagination is decreasing (M-)
The data showed a significant negative correlation between the Roerich Index and the 16PF factor C score (r=-0.27, p=0.02), indicating that the more symbols of disturbance that appear in the mental journey, the lower the emotional stability of the respondent.
Also revealed was a moderate negative correlation between the Roerich Index and the 16PF factor M score (r=-0.23, p=0.05), indicating that the more imaginative the respondent is, the fewer emotional distress symbols appear in his journey.
A slightly positive correlation between the Roerich Index and the 16PF factor Q4 score was also noted (r=-0.21, p=0.07), which could mean that the higher the number of emotional issues appearing in the mental journey, the higher the tension of the subject.
|Descriptive titles for Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire||RPI|
|Primary Factors||Left meaninglow scores||Right meaninghigh scores||r||Sig.(2-tailed)|
|A – Warmth||Reserved, detached||Outgoing, warmhearted||0.02||0.85|
|B – Reasoning||Low crystallized intelligence||High crystallized intelligence||0.01||0.92|
|C – Emotional Stability||Emotionally unstable||Emotionally stable||-0.27||0.02|
|E – Dominance||Humble, mild||Assertive, dominant||-0.02||0.86|
|F – Impulsivity||Sober, taciturn||Happy-go-lucky, enthusiastic||-0.21||0.08|
|G – Superego strength||Expedient, disregards||Conscientious, persistent||-0.02||0.84|
|H – Boldness||Shy, timid||Venturesome, uninhibited||0.06||0.64|
|I – Sensitivity||Tough-minded, self-reliant||Tender-minded, sensitive||-0.03||0.78|
|L – Trust||Trusting||Suspicious||-0.01||0.93|
|M – Imagination||Practical, down-to-earth||Imaginative, bohemian||-0.23||0.05|
|N – Shrewdness||Forthright, artless||Shrewd, acute||-0.10||0.42|
|O – Confidence||Self-assured, secure||Guilt prone, apprehensive||0.12||0.32|
|Q1 – Radicalism||Conservative||Radical||0.04||0.74|
|Q2 – Self-sufficiency||Group dependent||Self-sufficient||-0.03||0.82|
|Q3 – Self-sentiment||Undisciplined, lax||Self-sufficient, resourceful||-0.15||0.21|
|Q4 – Tension||Relaxed, tranquil||Tense, frustrated||0.21||0.07|
Table 4:Correlation between 16PF scales and the Roerich Index
The results also indicated a slightly negative correlation between the Roerich Index and the 16PF factor F (r=-0.21, p=0.08), which could indicate that the happier the respondent is, the fewer emotional conflicts appear in his responses.
Correlations between the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory (RPI) and Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS)
The data shown in Table 5 support an interaction between negative self-description and traumatic symbols in mental imagery. The standard deviation of the mean was reliable, including emotional stability (F=6.268, p=0.015) and objectivity (F=6.491, p=0.013).
Using analysis of variance (ANOVA), we compared the means of those two groups, formed by using the stress index criterion, and observed that there were only two significant differences (at factors E and O), as shown in Table 5. From these, we concluded that subjects with high levels of stress (measured using RPI) also have a low level of emotional stability (measured using GZTS).
|Group withLow-Level Stress (N=37)||Group withHigh-Level Stress (N=35)|
|Scales||Mean||S. D.||Mean||S. D.||F||Sig.|
|G – General Activity||18.08||3.33||17.22||3.66||1.068||0.305|
|R – Restraint||18.67||2.97||17.60||3.58||1.931||0.169|
|A – Ascendance||18.21||3.70||19.22||3.61||0.375||0.245|
|S – Sociability||23.27||3.24||21.85||4.20||2.567||0.114|
|E – Emotional Stability||24.64||3.53||22.28||4.44||6.268||0.015|
|O – Objectivity||22.70||3.88||20.05||4.89||6.491||0.013|
|F – Friendliness||14.72||3.42||13.34||4.72||2.050||0.157|
|T – Thoughtfulness||17.78||3.75||18.77||4.65||0.985||0.324|
|P – Personal Relations||16.51||5.71||16.31||5.94||0.021||0.885|
|M – Masculinity||18.05||2.99||17.71||3.46||0.199||0.657|
Table 5: The differences between GZTS scales, depending on stress index level
Further, the data showed 3 significant correlations, all negative, between the Roerich Index and GZTS factors S, E and O, which, combined, show that when the level of emotional issues is rising (measured using RPI), we can observe three important modifications of GZTS scores (Table 6):
Sociability is decreasing (S)
Emotional stability is decreasing (E)
Objectivity is decreasing (O)
|Descriptive titles for Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey||RPI|
|Symptom Scales||Low Scores||High Scores||r||Sig.(2-tailed)|
|G – General Activity||Slow, deliberate||Energetic, quick||-0.179||0.132|
|R – Restraint||Impulsive||Serious minded||-0.096||0.423|
|A – Ascendance||Submissive, hesitant||Assertive, confident||0.105||0.382|
|S – Sociability||Shy, withdrawn||Friendly, talkative||-0.262||0.026|
|E – Emotional Stability||Gloomy, excitable||Cheerful, composed||-0.342||0.030|
|O – Objectivity||Tender-minded||Tough||-0.277||0.018|
|F – Friendliness||Hostility, contempt||Respect for others||-0.168||0.159|
|T – Thoughtfulness||Interest in the outer world||Reflectiveness||0.121||0.313|
|P – Personal Relations||Fault-finding||Tolerance of people||0.038||0.749|
|M – Masculinity||Sympathetic, emotional||Hardboiled, emotionally inexpressive||-0.195||0.100|
Table 6:Correlation between GZTS symptom scales and RPI stress index
There was a significant negative correlation between the Roerich Index and the S scale score on GZTS (r=-0.262, p=0.026), which could indicate that the shyer the respondent is, the more emotional conflicts appear in his mental imagery responses.
A strong negative correlation between the Roerich Index and the E scale score on GZTS (r=-0.342, p=0.030) could mean that the more traumatic symbols appearing in the mental journey, the lower the respondent’s emotional stability.
A strong negative correlation between the Roerich Index and the O scale score on GZTS (r=-0.277, p=0.018) was also noted; this suggests that the more objective the respondent is, the fewer symbols of emotional distress appear in his journey.
The second study extended the investigation by examining correlations between RPI and other classical questionnaires. There are three differences between this study and the former. First, the subjects were police applicants rather than officers, so the sample was broader. Second, rather than dividing subjects into two groups, we divided them into three and excluded the middle group in order to increase precision. Finally, the instruments were more clinically focused; instead of measuring a large number of personality factors, we examined only a few traits significant to emotional adjustment.
MethodSample and Procedure
The site for the study was the Police Department Special Forces (Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT)) belonging to the Romanian Ministry of Interior. The sample consisted of 221 police applicants with a mean age of 20 and a standard deviation of 2 years. Male respondents accounted for 59% of the sample.
The study design (Figure 2) called for a division of the subjects into 3 groups: one with high levels of stress, one with moderate levels of stress, and one with low levels of stress.
The group with moderate levels of stress was excluded from the study.
To obtain the three groups, we used cutoff scores of 33% and 66%. Subjects scoring in the lowest 33% formed the low-level stress group, and the subjects who had scores above 66% of the mean formed the high-level stress group. We then compared stress index scores from the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory with scores from other inventories.Personality Measures
We used a quantitative interpretation system to score the fifteen-item version of the RPI and then we divided the subjects into three equivalent groups based on the mean stress index.
We measured most of the determinants using the Cattell Anxiety Scale (CAS) and the Cornell Medical Index (CMI). The Cattell Anxiety Scale is a non-stressful 40-item questionnaire that provides a convenient and practical measure of anxiety based on the five principal 16PF anxiety factors: emotional instability (C-), suspiciousness (L+), guilt-proneness (O+), low integration (Q3-), and tension (Q4+). The Cornell Medical Index serves as a standardized means of gathering medical history and a guide to subsequent interview. From its inception in 1949 through the 1970s, the CMI was widely used and considered valid, reliable, and reputable.Data Analysis
To determine the degree of association among the personality measures, Pearson correlation coefficients were computed. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether or not there were significant differences between personality profiles of those with very high and very low scores on the RPI.
Tables 7 and 8 show the results. The mean of the Roerich Index is 13, with a standard deviation of 3, so a score above 17 could be interpreted as an indicator of emotional disturbance.
Table 7: Descriptive data for the RPI stress index (or Roerich Index) obtained from a sample of police academy applicants
Table 8: Frequency of RPI stress index scores
Correlations between the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory (RPI) and Cattell Anxiety Scale (CAS)
The Pearson correlation coefficient computed using the RPI and CAS scores (Table 9) showed an important correlation between these two instruments (r=0.219, p=0.002),specifically that the higher the Roerich Index is, the higher the anxiety of the subject is.
In addition, the data showed a correlation between the anxiety level measures of CAS and two of the RPI’s five components. Specifically, there was a significant correlation between the CAS and the first component of the RPI (r=0.146, p=0.037), indicating that the more difficult the road becomes the higher the respondent’s anxiety. There was also a significant correlation between the CAS and the third component of the RPI (r=0.215, p=0.002), indicating that the worse the condition of the house the higher the respondent’s anxiety.
Finally, a detailed analysis of the subjects’ responses was performed in order to determine what correlations existed between the CAS and the specific items of the RPI. When anxiety is rising (measured using Cattell’s scale), three modifications at RPI items 3, 9 and 10 are observed (Table 9). This indicates a significant correlation between the CAS and the third component of RPI (r=0.184, p=0.008), which could mean that the more broken the road becomes the higher the subject’s anxiety is. It was also noted that a significant correlation appears between the CAS and the ninth item of the RPI (r=0.202, p=0.004), meaning that the more deteriorated the house is the higher the anxiety of the subject is. And a significant correlation was shown between the CAS and the tenth item of the RPI (r=0.218, p=0.002), indicating that inhabitants of the house distant in relation to the subject reveal higher anxiety.
The second step was to evaluate personality differences between groups with extreme stress index scores on RPI. The means of those groups showed the existence of a significant difference (F=4.624, p=0.011) between the group with a low-level stress index and the group with a high-level stress index (Table 10), indicating that subjects who obtain a high score on RPI are more anxious.
|CATTELL ANXIETY SCALE|
|Pearson Correlation||Sig. (2-tailed)|
|RI – Roerich Index|
|The total score RI – Roerich Index||0.219||0.002|
|RA – The road||0.146||0.037|
|RB – The river||0.106||0.131|
|RC – The house||0.215||0.002|
|RD – The cup||0.101||0.151|
|RE – The obstacle||0.043||0.542|
|R1 – The color||0.015||0.828|
|R2 – The texture||0.068||0.337|
|R3 – The solidity||0.184||0.008|
|R4 –Manner of crossing||-0.001||0.983|
|R5 – The cleanliness||0.091||0.193|
|R6 –The speed||0.094||0.180|
|R7 –The objects||0.093||0.184|
|R8 – The color||-0.010||0.890|
|R9 – The condition||0.202||0.004|
|R10 – The inhabitants||0.218||0.002|
|R11 – The color||-0.026||0.715|
|R12 – The condition||0.086||0.223|
|R13 – The content||0.017||0.813|
|R14 – The obstacle||0.027||0.705|
|R15 – The beyond||0.038||0.593|
Note: This table did not reproduce on this page correctly. Click on Government Research link at the top of page to view this table as a Word document.
Table 9: Correlations between the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory and Cattell Anxiety Scale
|Group withLow-Level Stress (N=37)||Group withHigh-Level Stress (N=35)|
|Mean||S. D.||Mean||S. D.||F||Sig.|
|Cattell Anxiety Scale||10.53||5.51||14.18||9.15||4.624||0.011|
Table 10: The means from CAS depending on stress index level
Correlations between the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory (RPI) and Cornell Medical Index (CMI)
Pearson correlation coefficients computed using the RPI and CMI scores (Table 11) showed the existence of a meaningful correlation between these two instruments (r=0.236, p = 0.001),specifically the higher the Roerich Index is, the greater the psychological complaints of the subject.
Also shown was a correlation between the neurotic tendencies of the subjects using the conventional CMI score and three of the RPI’s five components. The data showed a significant correlation between the CMI and the first component of RPI (r=0.172, p=0.014), indicating that the more difficult the road characteristics are, the greater the psychiatric symptoms of the subject. A significant correlation between the CMI and the second component of RPI (r=0.136, p=0.051) indicated that the more unpleasant the water characteristics are, the greater the emotional disturbances of the respondent. And a significant correlation between the CMI and the third component of RPI (r=0.219, p=0.002) revealed that the worse the condition of the house, the greater the tendency of the respondent for psychopathology.
|CORNELL MEDICAL INDEX|
|Pearson Correlation||Sig. (2-tailed)|
|The total score||RI – Roerich Index||0.236||0.001|
|RA – The road||0.172||0.014|
|RB – The river||0.136||0.051|
|RC – The house||0.219||0.002|
|RD – The cup||0.062||0.374|
|RE – The obstacle||0.063||0.369|
|R1 – The color||0.026||0.716|
|R2 – The texture||0.092||0.190|
|R3 – The solidity||0.204||0.003|
|R4 –Manner of crossing||-0.033||0.636|
|R5 – The cleanliness||0.076||0.276|
|R6 –The speed||0.183||0.009|
|R7 –The objects||0.123||0.079|
|R8 – The color||0.080||0.257|
|R9 – The condition||0.160||0.022|
|R10 – The inhabitants||0.194||0.005|
|R11 – The color||-0.106||0.131|
|R12 – The condition||0.053||0.448|
|R13 – The content||0.065||0.356|
|R14 – The obstacle||0.021||0.761|
|R15 – The beyond||0.059||0.399|
Note: This table did not reproduce on this page correctly. Click on Government Research link at the top of page to view this table as a Word document.
Table 11: Correlations between the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventoryand Cornell Medical Index
Finally, a detailed analysis of the subjects’ responses was performed in order to determine what correlations exist between the CMI and the specific items of the RPI. When anxiety is rising (measured using the Cornell Index), four modifications at RPI items 3, 6, 9 and 10 can be observed. The data indicate a significant correlation between the CMI and the third item of the RPI (r=0.204, p=0.003), meaning that the more broken the road becomes, the higher the psychological complaintsof the subject. A significant correlation between the CMI and the sixth item of the RPI (r=0.183, p=0.009) indicates that the stronger the river current is, the greater the emotional problems of the subject. There also appeared a significant correlation between the CMI and the ninth item of the RPI (r=0.160, p=0.022), meaning that the more deteriorated the house is, the greater the neurotic complaintsof the subject. A significant correlation between the CMI and the tenth item of the RPI (r=0.194, p=0.005) indicates that inhabitants of the house distant in relation to the subject reveal increasing psychopathology.
As with the CAS data, we then evaluated differences between groups with very high and very low Roerich stress index scores. The mean of those groups showed a significant difference (F=4.927, p=0.008) between the group with a low-level Roerich Index and the group with a high-level Roerich Index (Table 12), indicating that subjects who obtain a high score on the RPI are more neurotic.
|Group withLow-Level Stress (N=79)||Group withHigh-Level Stress (N=75)|
|Mean||S. D.||Mean||S. D.||F||Sig.|
|Cornell Medical Index||4.12||6.4||7.31||6.6||4.974||0.008|
Table 12: Mean of CMI depending on stress index level
Discussion and Conclusions
Convergent validity, when used to measure the psychometric properties of a tool, “requires the existence of a meaningful relationship between the new tool measures and the classical tools’ measures” (Anastasi, 1998). Correlations between a new test and similar earlier tests are evidence that the new test measures approximately the same general area of behavior, such as emotional stability, anxiety, and mental health (Cronbach, 1970).
The Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory was considered somewhat childish and not very serious because the questions are so common or do not appear to be related to emotional issues. The cause of this perception was low face validity. However, there is no logical relationship between face validity and real validity; in some cases there may be a positive correlation between them, whereas in other cases, such as selection, face validity may be a real disadvantage (Cattell, Warburton, 1967). With respect to the data in this study, low face validity is not a negative characteristic, but a very positive one.Convergent Validity of the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory
The data showed a significant negative correlation between the RPI stress index and factor C from 16PF (ego weakness – ego strength). This factor is one of dynamic integration and maturity as opposed to uncontrolled, disorganized, general emotionality, and it is characteristically low in all kinds of clinical disorders. In its positive sense, it seems to be what psychoanalysts have attempted to describe with the notion of ego strength and weakness. In the questionnaire manifestation, the C- person is easily annoyed by things and people, is dissatisfied with the world situation, his family, the restrictions of life, and his own health, and he feels unable to cope with life. He shows generalized neurotic responses in the form of phobias, psychosomatic disturbances, sleep disturbances, and hysterical and obsessive behavior. “It is the most general pathological contributor being found in neurotics, psychotics, alcoholics, drug addicts” (Cattell, Eber, Tatsouka, 1992).
The data also showed a significant positive correlation between the RPI stress index and factor Q4 from 16PF (low ergic tension – high ergic tension). Factor Q4 is best interpreted as an “id” energy excited in excess of the ego strength capacity to discharge it, and which is therefore misdirected, converted into psychosomatic disturbances or anxiety, and is generally disruptive of steady application and emotional balance. The interpretation as a function of general frustration is supported by the finding that among 16PF factors, Q4 has the largest demonstrated association with clinical depression and in psychopathology. It represents a level of excitement and tension, expressing undischarged and poorly controllable libido. That’s why high scores could show the incapacity of the ego to handle discharge well even in an environment of ordinary difficulty. It may also be thought of as the factor in depression which is connected with the general level of frustration, and it is not surprising that “Q4 manifestations express the gamut of frustration responses from anger and repugnancy to anxiety and depression” (Cattell, Eber, Tatsouka, 1992).
Individuals who score at the factor’s high end (Q4+ scores) describe themselves using adjectives such as uptight, jittery, and tense. These self-descriptions are consistent with the restless, fidgety, impatient—and in some cases volatile—behavior that they frequently present. For example, factor Q4 has been found to correlate with overstimulation of the autonomic nervous system and corresponding unpleasant sensations. The absence or presence of these sensations can be due to a passing state or to an underlying personality trait. Those whose tension is transitory can usually relate it to a specific anxiety-producing situation. By contrast, characteristically tense individuals are consistently tense (Cattell, 1997).
The data showed a significant negative correlation between the RPI stress index and factor E from GZTS (emotional instability – emotional stability). Factor E corresponds to what is described as emotional maturity, good adjustment, and stress tolerance. The E score is a sensitive indicator of overall adjustment. A high score indicates ability to control emotions rather than become hostage to them. E+ scoring examinees therefore respond appropriately to life’s stressors and act proactively in meeting their wants and needs. Most show good reality testing, a sense of proportion, and a capacity to calm themselves down after they get upset. Some, however, rely more on denial of negative feelings than on these adaptive attributes.In contrast, E- scoring examinees become easily distressed and frustrated and have little resilience. They have an oscillation of disposition, energy and interests, are pessimistic with a bad disposition, and feel guilty, bored and alone. It is common for their moods and negative feelings to cloud their judgment and distort their picture of reality. As may be anticipated, E– scores are associated with all forms of psychopathology with the exception of sociopathic personality disorders.
The data showed a significant negative correlation between the RPI stress index and factor O from GZTS (subjectivity – objectivity). The factor O corresponds to what is described as objectivity, the low scores being indicators for hypersensitivity and susceptibility. Such a person doesn’t trust people, is egocentric and selfish, and has an interpretative behavior, showing subjectivity in judging others, and worrying about little things.
There was a significant positive correlation between the RPI stress index and Cattell AnxietyScale (low anxiety – high anxiety). Persons with high scores on CAS feel that they are unstable, report over-fatigue from exciting situations, are unable to sleep because of worrying, feel inadequate to meet the rough daily demands of life, are easily downhearted and remorseful, feel that people are not as moral as they should be, and show a mixture of hypochondriacal and neurasthenic symptoms.
There was also a significant positive correlation between the RPI stress index and Cornell Medical Index (psychological complaints – psychological complaints). High scores on CMI are predictors of adjustment problems, pathological affective reactions (fear and depression), anxiety and nervosas, psychosomatic symptoms, hypochondriacal and astenic symptoms, excessive sensibility and distrust, and psychopathic disorders. The score could differentiate between a normal person and a person with serious personality and psychosomatic disorders, being a good indicator of clinical problems.
Overall, the data showed that the RPI stress index is related to a vast number of emotional disturbances. Simple correlation analyses revealed that individuals with negative self-descriptions are also inclined to present mental symbols of emotional disturbances. This supports the notion that people’s mental images are indicators of psychological complaints. Closer examination also indicated that mental images were influenced by the imaginative capacity of the respondents; in other words, non-imaginative people present more traumatic mental images.
Given the reliabilities of all these scales (factor C and Q4 from 16PF, scale E and O from GZTS, CAS and CMI), it appears that the RPI is essentially measuring the same variable related to emotional issues that supports the concurrent validity of the inventory.Most Important Conclusion about the Convergent Validity of RPI
These data give us sufficient reason to suppose that mental images, or symbols, can provide valuable hypotheses about a subject’s mental health status, especially with respect to those features related to neuroticism, as revealed by Roerich’s five-component model. The personality dimension of neuroticism reflects the tendency to experience emotional distress and the inability to cope effectively with stress. Highly neurotic people are extremely tense, anxious, insecure, suspicious, jealous, emotionally unstable, hostile and vulnerable to a large number of mental health disturbances. In those mental health areas where we suppose the respondents deliberately avoid the truth in favor of social desirability, we could use the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory as a very easy, quick, subtle and indirect assessment of neuroticism features.The Limits of this Research
It is important to present some facts that in our opinion could have biased the data:
First, the measures used do not address current models of neuroticism (Big Five Model), but instead use a psychodynamic point of view.
Second, the correlation coefficients were only moderate.
Very strong correlations are not necessary to prove that RPI represents a subtle measure of emotional issues, because if a new test correlates too highly with an already available test, without such added advantages, the new test represents needless duplication (Anastasi, 1988). So these correlations should be only moderate, and not too high.
It is also important to remember that it is not an easy matter to show that a test is valid, since this can require many studies. A shortcoming of the definition of validity is the implication that a test has only one validity, which is presumably established by a single study to determine whether the test measures what it is supposed to measure. Establishing validity for a test may require many studies. In addition, a test may have many different validities, depending on the specific purposes for which it was designed, the target population, and the method for determining validity (Aiken, 2000). It is hardly surprising that relatively few tests have good evidence for their validity, and too many psychological tests are of surprisingly low validity (Kline, 1994).The Advantages of the Roerich Psychodynamic Inventory
It is easy to apply and shorter than many other questionnaires
It is more interesting for the subject than traditional inventories
It offers a truer indicator of emotional dysfuntion without sacrificing social desirability
It allows an indirect and subtle evaluation of mental status that provides indicators of sexual abuse, victimization, self-blame, etc. Future Research
Goals for future research include:
First, a very systematic analysis of psychometric characteristics of the RPI, especially concerning the internal consistency coefficients and correlations between scales and items.
Second, continued careful investigation of the correlations between RPI and other clinically-focused questionnaires (MMPI, FPI, CPS, etc.), in order to gather more precise and valid evidence of its characteristics.
In spite of a few weaknesses, our study offers valuable insight into the psychological assessment of people’s emotional world using a mental imagery framework. We welcome any suggestions and research projects related to this area of study.References
Aiken, L.R. (2000). Psychological Testing and Assessment. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological Testing. New York, Macmillan Publishing Company.
Brislin, R.W. (1980). “Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Material.” In H. C. Triandis & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (Vol. 1, pp.389-444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brodman, R., A.J. Erdmann, I. Lorge, and H.G. Wolff (1949). “The Cornell Medical Index: an Adjunct to Medical Interview.” JAMA 140:530.
Cattell, H.B. (1997). The 16PF Cattell Comprehensive Personality Interpretation Manual. Champaign, Illinois, Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Cattell, R.B., H.W. Eber, and M.M. Tatsuoka (1992). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Champaign, Illinois, Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Cattell, R.B. and F.W. Warburton (1967). Objective Personality and Motivation Tests. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.
Cronbach, J.L. (1970). Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York, Harper & Row.
Cronbach, J.L. and E.P. Meehl (1955). “Construct Validity in Psychological Tests.” Psychological Bulletin, 2, 281-302.
Feltz, D.L. and D.M. Landers (1983). “The Effects of Mental Practice on Motor Skill Learning and Performance: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 25-57.
Golfarb, D.A., Aumiller, G.S. (2000). http://www.heavybadge.com.
Finke, R.A. (1989). Principles of Mental Imagery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hambleton, R.K. (1993). “Translating Achievement Tests for Use in Cross-national Studies.” European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9, 57-68.
Van de Vijver, F. and R.K. Hambleton (1996). “Translating Tests: Some Practical Guidelines.” European Psychologist, Vol. 1, No.2, 89-99.
Kline, P. (1994). The Handbook of Psychological Testing. London and New York, Routledge.
Martin, K.A. and C.R. Hall (1995). “Using Mental Imagery to Enhance Intrinsic Motivation.” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 54-69.
McMahon, C.E. (1973). “Images as Motives and Motivators: A Historical Perspective.” American Journal of Psychology (86) 465-90.
McKellar, P. (1957). Imagination and Thinking. London: Cohen & West.
Pavio, A. (1985). “Cognitive and Motivational Functions of Imagery in Human Performance.” Journal of Applied Sports Science, 10, 22-28.
Yates, F.A. (1966). The Art of Memory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.