Legal Admissibility of the Rorschach and R-PAS: A Review of Research, Practice, and Case Law

Viglione, Donald J.; Ruiter, Corine de; King, Christopher; Meyer, Gregory J.; Kivisto, Aaron J.; Rubin, B. A.; Hunsley, John

doi:10.1080/00223891.2022.2028795

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite a long-standing debate on its validity and usefulness (e.g., Cronbach, 1949;Jensen, 1965;Lilienfeld et al, 2000;Meyer & Archer, 2001;Mihura et al, 2013Mihura et al, , 2015Society for Personality Assessment, 2005;Viglione, 1999;Viglione et al, 2022;Wood et al, 2015), the Rorschach inkblot task remains one of the most widely used (Wright et al, 2017), taught (Belter & Piotrowski, 2001;Childs & Eyde, 2002;Mihura et al, 2017), and researched 2 assessment instruments. According to Meyer et al (2011), one of the reasons for its popularity is that it offers a unique range of information about one's personality features and processing style, giving the assessor the possibility to observe performance-related characteristics that are typical, rather than maximum.…”

Section: Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-pas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Meyer et al (2011), one of the reasons for its popularity is that it offers a unique range of information about one's personality features and processing style, giving the assessor the possibility to observe performance-related characteristics that are typical, rather than maximum. 3 It should be underscored that from a psychometric standpoint, the claim that the Rorschach "is invalid" has been refuted by the most recent and extensive reviews and metaanalyses on this topic (Bornstein, 1999;Diener et al, 2011;Graceffo et al, 2014;Jørgensen, 2000;Meyer & Archer, 2001;Mihura et al, 2013Mihura et al, , 2015Viglione et al, 2022). In particular, Mihura et al's (2013) meta-analytic examination of all interpreted variables included in the popular comprehensive system (CS; Exner, 2003) led to the conclusion that 26 of them demonstrated excellent (r ≥ 0.33, p < .001, FSN > 50) or good (r ≥ .21, p < .05, FSN ≥ 10) validity, when using externally assessed criteria to evaluate them rather than self-report.…”

Section: Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-pas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-pas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, selected scores from the Rorschach task may now be considered useful tools in the field of psychological injury and law (Erard, 2012;Viglione et al, 2022). Especially in forensic settings, it is crucial to ensure that a test used is empirically supported and has good psychometric properties, so that forensic examiners can draw valid and accurate conclusions from methods that meet current requirements for admissibility in court Meyer & Eblin, 2012;Viglione et al, 2022). These selected scores are included in the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS; Meyer et al, 2011Meyer et al, , 2014Meyer, & Eblin, 2012), which is the most updated method for administration, scoring, and interpretation and was designed as a replacement for the CS.…”

Section: Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-pas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Furthermore, it is used in nearly a third of assessments to investigate criminal responsibility and competency to stand trial (Borum & Grisso, 1995), and nearly a third of forensic psychologists currently use it in their daily practice (Archer et al, 2006). Moreover, it is important to underline that even following the numerous controversies over the Rorschach, almost all the federal and state courts have considered it a sufficient tool for expert testimony (Meloy et al, 1987;Meloy, 2008;Viglione et al, 2022;Weiner et al, 1996).…”

Section: R-pas In Psycho-legal Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Can the Rorschach be Administered Remotely? A Review of Options and a Pilot Study Using a Newly Developed R-PAS App

Ales

Meyer

Mihura

et al. 2022

Psychol. Inj. and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has required psychologists to adopt measures like physical distancing and mask wearing, though other safety procedures such as travel restrictions or prohibitions on in-person practice and research have fostered the use of tele-health tools. In this article, we review options for using the Rorschach task via videoconference and provide preliminary data from using a new electronic app for remote R-PAS administration to determine whether the remote administration in an electronic form yields different information than in-person administration with the cards in hand. As a pilot study, our focus is on the “first factor” of all Rorschach scores, i.e., complexity. Data were collected from 60 adult Italian community volunteers, and statistical analyses evaluated the extent to which the average complexity score significantly departed from R-PAS normative expectations (SS = 100), accompanied by Bayesian likelihoods for supporting the null hypothesis. Results suggest that the general level of complexity shown by the test-takers when administered the Rorschach remotely with the new R-PAS app closely resembles that previously observed using “standard” in-person procedures. Tentative analyses of other R-PAS scores suggested normative departures that could be due to the effects of the app, testing at home, or responses to the pandemic. We offer recommendations for future research and discuss practical implications.

show abstract

Section: Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-pas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-pas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-pas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-pas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: R-pas In Psycho-legal Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Can the Rorschach be Administered Remotely? A Review of Options and a Pilot Study Using a Newly Developed R-PAS App

Ales

Meyer

Mihura

et al. 2022

Psychol. Inj. and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ruling out feigned crime‐related amnesia? A response to Acklin (2022)

Rubenzer

2023

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent paper, Acklin discussed a case of possible amnesia for a murder in terms of neurobiology, psychoanalysis, and personality assessment. Acklin accepted the defendant's claim of amnesia for the crime as genuine. The considerable literature that takes a skeptical view of crime-related amnesia was not cited, and the possibility of feigning or malingering was "ruled out" with a single sentence that does not withstand scrutiny. A review of the literature on feigned amnesia suggests that it may not be possible to rule out malingering even if the best available tools are used: There has been minimal investigation of most validity tests and estimates of base rates of feigned amnesia for a crime vary widely and make estimates of Negative Predictor Power highly unreliable. Although one cannot know from the information presented if Acklin's defendant legitimately experienced amnesia, feigning could not be ruled out using an interview and the test data cited by Acklin. I call for a moratorium on publication of further articles on crime specific amnesia that do not conscientiously examine other potential explanations and do not use current best practices for assessing negative response bias.

show abstract

Clarifying Sound and Suspect Use of the Rorschach in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations: A Response to Areh et al. (2022)

Ruiter

Giromini

Meyer

et al. 2023

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Areh et al. (Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 29:183–205, 2022) recently commented on what standards should be applied to determine whether a test is appropriate for psycholegal use and concluded that the Rorschach does not meet their proposed standards. Accordingly, they concluded that psychologists should not use it in legal contexts. However, Areh et al.’s (2022) claims are based on a significant misunderstanding of how the Rorschach task works, relative neglect of the last 20 years of Rorschach research, unrealistic psychometric standards for assessing the reliability and validity of a psychological assessment measure, and a single European legal case in which a forensic expert used the Rorschach inappropriately. Our article seeks to clarify and correct some of their errors and misleading assertions. First, we clarify how the Rorschach task works according to more recent and widely accepted conceptualizations. Then, we show that Areh et al.’s (2022) position that Rorschach task data do not meet acceptable validity standards, especially when compared to medical tests, is empirically untenable. Next, we provide a detailed and nuanced account of what the Rorschach has to offer as a performance-based assessment method for forensic evaluators and the legal system, with attention paid to the anecdotal legal case Areh et al. (2022) highlighted. Finally, we provide four reasons why the Rorschach can be a useful tool for forensic mental health assessments when using the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS).

show abstract

Legal Admissibility of the Rorschach and R-PAS: A Review of Research, Practice, and Case Law

Cited by 14 publications

References 71 publications

Can the Rorschach be Administered Remotely? A Review of Options and a Pilot Study Using a Newly Developed R-PAS App

Can the Rorschach be Administered Remotely? A Review of Options and a Pilot Study Using a Newly Developed R-PAS App

Ruling out feigned crime‐related amnesia? A response to Acklin (2022)

Clarifying Sound and Suspect Use of the Rorschach in Forensic Mental Health Evaluations: A Response to Areh et al. (2022)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About