{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01935483870967742, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025806451612903226, 'mean_word_length': 5.308943089430894, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Detecting faking on the Rorschach: computer versus expert clinical judgment.

In a previous study of the ability of expert Rorschach interpreters to detect faking that used true and malingered protocols, the experts faired very poorly. In this study, 50% of these same protocols were scored by the Exner system and analyzed by Exner's Semantic Computer Interpretation program. The program indicated invalidity of protocols only on the basis of low R and designated the faked protocols high on psychotic descriptors, barely indicating psychosis for the true schizophrenic protocols. Unlike the judges, however, the computer gave no psychotic designation to the normal protocols. The scoring-computer analysis method was as susceptible to faking as were the clinical judgments.