This new methodology has been conceived during 30 years of professional practice, constantly applied in the clinical context, verified by continuous statistical tests and by comparing with the major clinical assessment instruments, has been developed in the theoretical context of the Psychoanalysis and in the course of time has undergone several modifications and improvements.
Within this process, it's possible to find 3 fundamental points:
1. To have always administered the Wartegg in battery with the Rorschach;
2. To have decided to score each Wartegg panel through two original characteristics: the Evocative Character (EC) and the Affective Quality (AQ);
3. To have, finally, centralized my attention on the Order with which the subject performs the Wartegg. Focusing on this point, I created a procedure named "Analysis of the Succession" that represents the central kernel of the clinical assessment valuation of this test.

1) Wartegg e Rorschach.
During the last 30 years, I have administered the Wartegg to more than 15,000 patients and, in about 2,000 of these cases, I administered it together with the Rorschach. Such continuous comparisons with Rorschach have provided the most remarkable contribution to the creation of this new methodology because has made it possible to work out a quite different scoring procedure and to define with extreme precision the psychic areas pertaining to each Wartegg panel.

2) The Evocative Character and the Affective Quality.
The Evocative Character Wartegg spoke of the archetypical function of the 8 stimulus-signs of his test and he understood the internal and universal ability of these signs to evoke, also for specific Gestalt laws, unconscious experiences in which all participate. Many years ago, I decided to score the evocative character: if the subject picks the implicit denotation in each stimulus-sign and effects graphic realizations that follow the suggestions he receives a score of 1; a score of 0.5 is allocated to drawings in which only a part of the evocative character is centred; 0 is given to those completely inadequate.
The Affective Quality For affective quality we must understand a value system based exclusively on the type of characterizations in each drawing of the subject. Also, depending on the content of the drawing, whether they are positive, neutral or negative, they are scored 1, 0.5 or 0 respectively.
In conclusion:
The Evocative Character provides us with information on how the subject, purely by a perceptive, gestaltic and associative way, was able to make an association by the stimulus-sign;
The Affective Quality informs us on the emotional tone of the subject, of his ability to enter in relation with his own affective and instinctual dynamics and of his capability to demonstrate them.

3) The Analysis of the Succession.
Wartegg affirmed: "the succession of the drawings must not be considered coincidental because they have a connection to the archetypical signs."
We depart from this assumption shared by all Wartegg scholars: the panels that the subject draws in the first half of the test (from the I to the IV panel in the Order of Performance) represent CHOICES; those drawn in the second half (from the V to the VIII panel in the order of succession), represent DELAYS.
On the ground of such considerations and using the Order of Succession with the scores obtained for the Evocative character and the Affective Quality, it's possible to obtain:

The Analysis of Succession 1. Proceeding that carries out 6 different evaluations and each one of these has different diagnostic meaning:
The CHOICE (C) : represents the maximum of the positive evaluation that a panel can obtain and it points out the areas of development and integration.
The AMBIVALENT CHOICE (AC) : it points out the existence of a certain degree or level of ambivalence that demonstrate intense polar feelings within the subject.
The NEGATIVE COMPENSATION (NC) : It is an index of a greatest degree of ambivalence and accentuated conflict in the psychic area revealed by the specific panel. These feelings, in general, are not perceived by the subject in a conscious manner, but instead they are revealed in an unconscious way.
The POSITIVE COMPENSATION (PC) : it represents a lesser negative degree amongst the various types of delay because is characterized by high values in the Evocative Character and in the Affective Quality. Similar to the negative compensation, for the high degree of conflict of unconscious nature, it is different because of its potentially positive characteristics.
AMBIVALENT DELAY (AD) : The ambivalent delay points out, in the psychic area evoked by the panel, the existence of ambivalent unconscious elements. These elements are deeply repressed and represent the origin of generalized strains, and of reactive behaviours, of a malaise that invades a great part of the behaviour.
DELAY (D) : It represents therefore elements that the subject tends to delete, to eliminate; they are, therefore, areas that are completely unconscious and that in latent way determine and affect all the behaviours of the subject.

The Analysis of the Succession 2. My clinical experience with the Wartegg test has helped me to create a theoretical model which the normal subject should follow during the succession of the panels. Such model, verified by statistical testing, makes within the Wartegg 4 pairs of Panels: 1-8; 3-6, 2-4 e 5-7.
the first two pairs (1-8 and 3-6) are formed by the conscious part of the subject. They, in fact, include multivarious functions of the Ego;
the seconds two pairs (2-4 and 5-7)have in common the characteristic of be tied panels by less conscious appearances; are tied to the unconscious and are connected to both collective unconscious and individual unconscious.
Then, on one hand, we have 4 panels (1, 3, 6 and 8) concerning the Ego and its process of adaptation with its surroundings; on the other hand, we have 4 panels (2, 4, 5 and 7) that are concerned more specifically with the Unconscious.
In a normal individual, the performance of Wartegg should be characterized:
panels 1 and 8 drawn in the first half and valued like choices; panels 3 and 6 drawn in the first half and still valued like choices or at most as ambivalent choices;
panels 2 and 4 in the second half and valued as positive compensations; panels 5 and 7 in the second half and valued as positive compensations.

For a in depth and detailed description of the