A little off-topic perhaps, but very interesting. From the LA Times, which requires free registration: Rorschach Tested

....a chorus of critics has emerged in recent years, saying that much of the test is mumbo jumbo, better relegated to a medical museum along with radioactive tonics and bloodletting fleams. They say that the test has potential to do harm by misdirecting therapy or by influencing decisions in high-stakes situations such as custody disputes.

"If psychologists used tea leaves instead of the Rorschach, we'd probably be better off, because then, at least, no one else would take the results seriously," says James Wood, associate professor of psychology at the University of Texas at El Paso.

....Rorschach defenders are fighting back fiercely. They counter that critics are unfairly scapegoating the test with a tenacity that borders on the fanatical. They say the test, which homes in on people's differing reactions to ambiguous images, is far more solid than detractors claim, and that time after time, Wood, Garb and Lilienfeld have failed to acknowledge the evidence in support of it.

We've always wanted to know how the test is scored, and here it is: