LAUSR

Abstract Limit testing in psychological assessment is understood typically as a unidirectional technique in which the assessor intentionally introduces a parameter(s) in the service of data gathering by modifying standard procedures. Other parameters are introduced as conflict-based enactments tied to projective identification processes, and represent modifications in the assessment framework. Such modifications, abstracted from the psychotherapy literature, include atypical shifts in the assessor’s usual practices concerning fees, scheduling, confidentiality, privacy, anonymity, administrative and technical procedure, and intervention style. In this article, I suggest that most framework modifications, if analyzed, hold the promise of an incremental data yield. These points are illustrated through discussion of (a) the assessment frame, enactments, and projective identification; (b) transference–countertransference interplay in response to frame issues; (c) 2 Rorschach responses that symbolically reflect enactments and projective identification; (d) interaction with coding consultants; (e) configurational analyses of the Rorschach responses; (f) patient–assessor and assessor–consultant parallel processes; and (g) test feedback.