Like commonly used neurocognitive measures, the Rorschach is based on the person’s performance in a standardized problem-solving task. However, it differs from traditional neurocognitive tests in a key respect. While neurocognitive tests are best described as tests of maximal cognitive performance (i.e., tests that measure how well the person does when asked to do his/her best on a task with explicit requirements), the Rorschach is best conceived as a test of typical cognitive performance (i.e., a test that measures what the person typically does in more open-ended situations). This difference is related to the difference between having the ability to do something and the disposition to do so. For example, a person might be intelligent and cognitively sophisticated (maximal performance), yet not be disposed to put these abilities to good use (e.g., towards academic, occupational, or social/relational achievements), because of emotional or personality issues (typical performance). Although real life circumstances and performance measures are best conceived as being on a continuum between these two conditions, the maximal-typical dichotomy is a useful heuristic for thinking about the match between different types of performance tasks and real world contexts. This distinction, first introduced by Cronbach (1990), was later referred to in the literature in relation to questions of construct validity and case validity in assessment (Teglasi, Nebbergall, & Newman, 2012).