Problems of the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach in Forensic Settings

Abstract

James M. Wood is Clin i cal Psy chol o gist and As so ci ate Pro fes sor of psy chol ogy at the Uni ver sity of Texas at El Paso. His re cent re search fo cuses on the in ter rog ative sug gest ibil ity of chil dren and adults. He and his col leagues have pub lished sev eral crit i cal re views of the Com pre hen sive Sys tem for the Ror schach. M. Teresa Nezworski is Clin i cal Child Psy chol o gist and As so ci ate Pro fes sor at the Uni ver sity of Texas at Dal las. She has an ac tive clin i cal prac tice in the area of behav ioral med i cine and trains clin i cal psy chol ogy in terns in meth ods of as sessment. Dr. Wil liam Stejskal has con ducted psy cho log i cal and neuropsychological eval u a tions in clin i cal, cor rec tional, and hu man ser vice set tings since 1984. He has pro vided fo ren sic eval u a tion and con sul ta tion ser vices in crim i nal and civil pro ceed ings in Fed eral and State courts in the Mid-At lan tic re gion. He is now at the In sti tute of Law, Psy chi a try, and Pub lic Pol icy at the Uni ver sity of Vir ginia. R. K. McKinzey is in pri vate fo ren sic prac tice on Oak land. He is a mem ber of APA's Div. 41 and NAN. He has an ar ti cle on fo ren sic neuropsychology at <www.cdaa.org/pubs/mckinzey.pdf>. Ad dress cor re spon dence to: James M. Wood, PhD, De part ment of Psy chol ogy, Uni ver sity of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968 (E-mail: jawood@miners.utep.edu).ABSTRACT. The Com pre hen sive Sys tem for the Ror schach is currently the sub ject of heated con tro versy among psy chol o gists. Much "com mon knowl edge" about the test is ei ther in cor rect or in dis pute. Psy chol o gists who use the Ror schach in fo ren sic set tings can of ten be suc cess fully chal lenged by well-in formed at tor neys and may risk be com ing the sub ject of eth ics com plaints. This ar ti cle iden ti fies seven is sues that are par tic u larly rel e vant to use of the Com pre hensive Sys tem for the Ror schach in fo ren sic psy chol ogy. [Ar ti cle cop ies avail able for a fee from The Haworth Doc u ment De liv ery Ser vice: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail ad dress: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]KEYWORDS. Ror schach, com pre hen sive sys tem, pro jec tive testing, fo ren sic, ex pert wit nesses

Les Pratiques Professionnelles Des Experts en Matière De Garde Et De Droits D’accès

“…Pour sa part, le test de Rorschach (Rorschach, 1994), lorsque comptabilisé avec le système de cotation d'Exner (Exner, 1991), constitue la seule mesure projective à répondre aux critères d'admissibilité exigés par les tribunaux (Bow, Gould, Flens et Grennhut, 2006;Garb, Wood, Lilienfeld et Nezworski, 2005). Son usage demeure toutefois controversé et certains auteurs questionnent la validité et la fidélité de cette mesure dans le contexte psycholégal (Hunsley et Di Giulio, 2001;Garb et al, 2005;Wood, Nezworski, Stejskal et McKinzey, 2001) alors que d'autres en reconnaissent les qualités scientifiques et en recommandent l'usage autant en contexte clinique que légal (Andronikof, 2008;Mattlar, 2004). Cette controverse illustre donc une polarisation au sein de la communauté scientifique quant à la reconnaissance de la scientificité du test de Rorschach (Andronikof, 2008;Hunsley et Di Giulio, 2001;Mattlar, 2004;Wood et al, 2001).…”

“…Son usage demeure toutefois controversé et certains auteurs questionnent la validité et la fidélité de cette mesure dans le contexte psycholégal (Hunsley et Di Giulio, 2001;Garb et al, 2005;Wood, Nezworski, Stejskal et McKinzey, 2001) alors que d'autres en reconnaissent les qualités scientifiques et en recommandent l'usage autant en contexte clinique que légal (Andronikof, 2008;Mattlar, 2004). Cette controverse illustre donc une polarisation au sein de la communauté scientifique quant à la reconnaissance de la scientificité du test de Rorschach (Andronikof, 2008;Hunsley et Di Giulio, 2001;Mattlar, 2004;Wood et al, 2001). Malgré tout, il apparait unanime que cette mesure est reconnue par les tribunaux en contexte d'expertise en matière de garde et de droits d'accès puisqu'elle répond aux critères de Daubert 7 , qu'elle est grandement utilisée par les experts en ce domaine (d'autant plus en convergence d'indices avec d'autres mesures) et finalement, qu'elle n'a presque jamais été contestée à titre d'élément de preuve dans un tel contexte (1 cas sur 7934) (Bow, Gould, Flens et Greenhut, 2006;Brunet, 2014).…”

Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts

“…Huberty, 2019;Hunsley & Bailey, 2001;Lilienfeld, 2015) and forensic (e.g. Garb, 1999;Wood et al, 2001) settings due to its poor psychometric characteristics. Surveys of forensic practitioners in North America have nevertheless revealed that the Rorschach was the most frequently used unstructured projective test, with up to 36% of research participants reporting that they had used it (see Archer et al, 2006).…”

The Utility of Rorschach in Forensic Psychiatric Evaluations – A Case Study

“…The RCS test has been used extensively in expert opinions in court proceedings in the United States (Piotrowski, 1996; Weiner et al., 1996) in spite of disagreement among scholars on whether the RCS meets the legal and professional standards for admissibility of scientific evidence in court (Grove & Barden, 1999; Wood, Nezworski, Garb, & Lilienfeld, 2001; Wood, Nezworski, Stejskal, & McKinzey, 2001). Analysis of the research status of the RCS has shown that the method meets the variety of the criteria for admissibility, including validity, publication in peer reviewed journals, and acceptance within the relevant scientific community (Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment, 2005; McCann, 1998; Ritzler, Erard, & Pettigrew, 2002).…”