sure, there could possibly be some value to it if the administration of the test were done under more rigorous standards and the results compared against statis

sure, there could possibly be some value to it if the administration of the test were done under more rigorous standards and the results compared against statistical correlations. I mean just common sense should tell you that the correct way to use it would be to have a distribution of common answers in front of you with correlation coefficients of the answers of people with various mental disorders. when you look at the history of the test this is not how it has been used. psychologists use patient answers as the starting point for their own interpretation of that patient's problems. it is psychoanalysis quackery all over again. the hypothesis are always descriptive and never prescriptive. if your hypothesis makes no predictions about behavior what is the point? it certainly isn't helping the patient. the whole point of labeling mental disorders is so that you can group people by what treatments actually help them, not so psychologists can get more research grants.