Projective assessment report template (Rorschach, TAT)

A projective assessment report is the document a psychologist writes after administering projective tests (Rorschach, TAT, CAT, Patte Noire, drawings). It does not hand over responses or scores: it translates, for a named reader, hypotheses about the person's psychological functioning, tied back to the referral question.

What a projective assessment report should contain

The structure follows any psychological assessment report: header, referral question, relevant history, conclusion and recommendations. Three sections are specific to projective assessment:

• Setting and method: tests used, scoring method, administration conditions (fatigue, medication, language, interrupted session).
• Summary by test, then overall synthesis: what each test allows you to think, in plain language, then where the tests agree and disagree.
• Integration with other data: interview, questionnaires, cognitive assessment.

The referral question remains the decisive section: the conclusion must answer it.

Rorschach: write according to your method, without handing over the scoring

The Rorschach can be scored and interpreted with several methods. In France, many clinicians use the French school, which is psychoanalytically oriented. Others use Exner's Comprehensive System or R-PAS, both based on normative data. Your report should name the method, because a reader does not weigh a psychodynamic hypothesis and a norm-referenced index in the same way.

Whatever your method, we suggest one rule: the structural summary, scoring sheet or profile stays in your file. In the report, you write what they allow you to think.

• Avoid: "Low F+%, extratensive EB, few M."
• Prefer: "With poorly structured material, the hold on shared reality weakens when emotion rises. Expressing feelings seems easier than thinking them through."

TAT, CAT and drawings

For the TAT, the synthesis covers how the person builds a story from a picture: staging relationships, recognising a conflict, finding a resolution, and the strategies used when anxiety rises. State the analysis grid and the number of cards used, without describing their content. Drawings (family, person, tree) support the interview; we suggest presenting them as observations rather than a test in their own right, and not attaching them to a report sent to a third party.

What to write and what to leave out

• Write: the question, the administration conditions, the tests and the method, tentative hypotheses, strengths as well as vulnerabilities, an answer to the question, realistic recommendations.
• Leave out: reproductions or detailed descriptions of the cards, the verbatim protocol, scores and indices without translation, diagnostic labels that the assessment does not support, interpretations of private life that the question does not justify.
• Vocabulary: replace "castration anxiety" or "splitting" with a description of what you observed, or explain the term in one sentence if you keep it.
• Recipient: a doctor, a school or the parents do not need the same level of detail. The French code asks you to pass psychological elements to a third party only when necessary.

Why not reproduce cards or the protocol? The 2021 French code does not address test material explicitly, so this is practice advice. Spreading cards or protocols undermines future administrations, and a response read out of context by a non-psychologist is easily misunderstood.

Linking projective and cognitive findings

When a WISC or WAIS has been done, by you or a colleague, mention it briefly: date, author, main lines. The point is to bring the two readings together. A low working memory index may mean something else if the Rorschach shows thinking flooded by emotion. Do not copy the cognitive scores; refer to the report that contains them.

The ethical framework in France, Belgium and Switzerland

In France, the code of ethics for psychologists (consolidated version of 9 September 2021) is the profession's reference text. Four articles bear directly on the report (our translation):

• Article 13: an assessment of a person can only be carried out if the psychologist has met that person.
• Article 15: the psychologist presents conclusions clearly and in a way adapted to the person; they answer the question cautiously and with discernment; when sent to a third party, they include the underlying psychological elements only if necessary; the person's assent or prior information is required.
• Article 18: documents are dated and carry the psychologist's identity, title, registration number, contact details, signature, recipient and purpose.
• Article 22: the psychologist is aware of the relative nature of assessments and interpretations and gives contextualised, non-reductive conclusions.

Article 9 asks the psychologist to systematically seek the free and informed consent of those who consult. For a minor, article 11 asks the psychologist to ensure the minor's consent as far as possible and to seek the authorisation of the legal guardians. Article 21 states that tests used must have been scientifically validated.

In Belgium, the code of ethics for psychologists is set by royal decree, published in the Belgian Official Gazette on 16 May 2014 and amended in 2018; according to the Psychologists' Commission, its articles 21 to 24 cover consent and work with minors. In Switzerland, refer to your professional association's code and the applicable cantonal law.

Projective assessment report template to copy

Copy this template into your word processor and replace the bracketed instructions.

• Header: [Name, psychologist, registration number (in France, RPPS number), address, phone, email]. Psychological assessment report (projective tests). Recipient: [name, role]. Purpose: [reply to the request from…]. Date: [dd/mm/yyyy].
• Person assessed: [first name, surname, date of birth, school year or occupation]. Legal guardians if a minor: [names].
• Referral question: [who referred, when, with what question; what the person or family expects].
• Relevant history: [three to six sentences that help understand the question: history of difficulties, family and school or work context, current care].
• Setting: [number of sessions and dates]. Tests: [Rorschach, method: French school / Comprehensive System / R-PAS]; [TAT or CAT, analysis grid]; [drawings, questionnaires]. Conditions: [fatigue, medication, language, interruption, other].
• Clinical observations: [presentation, contact, relation to instructions and material, change across sessions].
• Rorschach: [hold on shared reality; handling of feelings; images of self and relationships; defences used when anxiety rises; strengths].
• TAT / CAT: [ability to build a story; recognition of conflict; place of relationships; resolutions found; strategies when the situation becomes difficult].
• Synthesis of psychological functioning: [agreement between tests, disagreement, tentative hypotheses, strengths].
• Integration with other assessments: [cognitive assessment of dd/mm/yyyy by X: main lines, no scores; other data].
• Conclusion: [direct answer to the question in three to five sentences; what the assessment cannot say].
• Recommendations: [proposed therapy, referral, accommodations, reassessment date].
• Feedback: [date, who attended, main reactions, agreement to send the report to the recipient].
• Notice: This report reflects functioning observed at a given time. It is sent to [recipient] with the agreement of [person or legal guardians] and should not be passed on without that agreement. [Signature].

Fictional completed example

Fictional example: names, dates and situation are invented. No card or real response is reproduced.

• Header: Claire Martin, psychologist, registration no. 00 00 0000 0. Recipient: Dr Bernard, GP. Purpose: reply to your request for an assessment of Noah. Date: 12/10/2026.
• Person assessed: Noah, 14, in year 10. Legal guardians: both parents.
• Referral question: Noah was referred in June by his GP for gradual withdrawal and falling grades over the past year. Question: "Is there psychological distress that would explain this withdrawal?"
• Relevant history: family move two years ago, loss of his group of friends. No school difficulties before last year. A cognitive assessment (WISC-V) was done in May by a colleague. No current care.
• Setting: three sessions from September to October 2026, including one with the parents. Tests: Rorschach (French school), TAT (twelve cards, discourse-strategy grid), free drawing. Noah agreed after an explanation; his parents gave written consent. The third session was shortened at his request.
• Clinical observations: Noah arrives on time, polite, reserved. He first answers briefly, then relaxes once he understands there is no right answer.
• Rorschach: Noah adapts well to shared reality when the material is structured. When emotion is called on, his answers get shorter and he stays descriptive, which suggests an effort to keep feelings at a distance. Relationships appear but are not very lively. Real strengths: curiosity that returns towards the end and an ability to refine an answer.
• TAT: Noah builds coherent but short stories. Conflicts are recognised and often resolved by a character leaving or a quick ending. Loneliness comes up in several stories. When the picture suggests a close relationship, he relies on concrete details rather than the characters' feelings.
• Synthesis: both tests agree. Noah may be going through a depressive period linked to losses he has not worked through (friends, familiar surroundings), with a tendency to hold emotions in rather than share them. His defences remain flexible and his grasp of reality is intact.
• Integration with other assessments: the May 2026 cognitive assessment describes average ability with lower working memory. This may partly reflect the emotional load described here, which only a later reassessment could confirm.
• Conclusion: yes, the assessment shows psychological distress consistent with the withdrawal observed. It seems linked to the move and the isolation that followed, with no sign of a break with reality. This assessment does not aim to make a diagnosis.
• Recommendations: weekly therapy offered to Noah, who accepts; meeting with the parents every two months; information to the school nurse with Noah's agreement; cognitive reassessment in a year if difficulties persist.
• Feedback: on 12/10/2026, with Noah and then with his parents. The family agrees to this report being sent to Dr Bernard.

Common mistakes

• Concluding without answering: a conclusion that describes functioning without returning to the question leaves the reader empty-handed.
• Pasting the structural summary: a non-psychologist cannot read it and may draw the wrong conclusions.
• Quoting whole responses: a Rorschach response or TAT story taken out of the protocol takes on a meaning it did not have.
• Writing as fact: "Noah is depressed" instead of "Noah may be going through a depressive period".
• One document for everyone: the same text sent to the doctor, school and parents says too much to some and too little to others.

Checklist before sending

• Complete header (identity, title, registration number, contact details, date, recipient, purpose, signature).
• The referral question fits in one sentence and the conclusion answers it.
• Each test is named with its scoring method.
• No card described, no protocol attached, no unexplained score.
• Hypotheses are tentative and strengths are mentioned.
• Technical terms are explained or replaced.
• Consent to sending the report is noted (and the guardians' consent for a minor).
• The feedback session has taken place or is scheduled.

Oral feedback is prepared separately; see our psychological assessment feedback template.

Why Delta fits this case

After each test session, you dictate your observations; Delta drafts the assessment report in your vocabulary and structure, learned from your existing reports, and keeps the patient's history in one place. Scoring stays with you: Delta does not score tests and does not calculate any score.

Data is hosted in France with an HDS-certified provider and stays in Europe, the patient's name is pseudonymised before the AI, and no audio file is kept. See what Delta is, Delta for psychologists and our other clinical document templates.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• French code of ethics for psychologists, consolidated version of 9 September 2021 (PDF hosted by psychologues.org, in French)
• Psychologists' Commission (Belgium), the code of deontology
• French Digital Health Agency, transfer of ADELI professionals to the RPPS (psychologists: 3 June 2024, in French)
• R-PAS manual, table of contents (chapter 10, recommendations for interpretation)