Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses: A reply to Grove and Barden (1999) re: The admissibility of testimony under Daubert/Kumho analyses.

Abstract

The Rorschach Comprehensive System has been considered by W. M. Grove and R. C. Barden (1999) as inadmissible for expert psychological testimony according to the guidelines from the Daubert (1993), Joiner (1997), and Kumho (1999) decisions. This article refutes W. M. Grove and R. C. Barden's conclusions, arguing that the Rorschach Comprehensive System is (a) testable, (b) valid and reliable, (c) extensively peer reviewed, (d) associated with a reasonable error rate, (e) standardized, (f) accepted by a relevant and substantial scientific community, and (g) appropriate for a wide range of forensic issues. In drawing their negative conclusions, W. M. Grove and R. C. Barden overlooked or minimized a substantial body of empirical data supporting the reliability and validity of the Rorschach Comprehensive System and misinterpreted the language and intent of the Supreme Court decisions.

Does the R-PAS Meet Standards for Forensic Use? Considerations with Introducing a New Rorschach Coding System

“…Erard primarily frames his argument around the Rorschach method itself, writing, "It seems reasonable to suppose, consistent with the experience of many forensic psychologists, that most courts have limited interest or patience in disentangling fine technical points such as the comparative advantages of two quite similar assessment systems such as R-PAS vs. the CS" (p. 128). Working from this premise, Erard reviews the large body of research pointing to the general acceptance of the Rorschach that has been held up by previous authors analyzing the admissibility of the CS under Frye (e.g., McCann & Evans, 2008;Meloy, 2008;Medoff, 2003;Ritzler et al, 2002aRitzler et al, , 2002b.…”

“…McCann and Evans (2008) draw upon the proposed models put forth by Heilbrun (1992) and Marlowe (1995) to augment the legal standards in the FRE in their integrative CS Rorschach admissibility analysis. The published series of exchanges containing detailed analysis regarding the admissibility of the CS Rorschach by Ritzler and his colleagues is also quite informative in this regard (e.g., Ritzler, Erard, & Pettigrew, 2002a, 2002b. Heilbrun (1992, pp.…”

The Responsible Use of Psychological Testing in Child Custody Evaluations: Selection of Tests

“…The literature also includes analyses of several psychological tests regarding their admissibility under different legal criteria (i.e., Frye test, Daubert's four-prong standard) and psychological issues of test selection. This includes Human Figure Drawings (Lally, 2001), the MCMI-III (McCann, 2002;see Rogers, Salekin, & Sewell, 2000, for an opposing view;and Dyer & McCann, 2000, for a reply), the MMPI-2 (see, e.g., Otto, 2002;Otto & Collins, 1995), the Rorschach (Gacono, Evans, & Viglione, 2002;McCann, 1998; for an opposing view, see, e.g., Grove & Barden, 1999;Grove, Barden, Garb, & Lilienfeld, 2002;Wood, Nezworski, Lilienfeld, & Garb, 2003; and for a reply see, e.g., Ritzler, Erard, & Pettigrew, 2002a, 2002b, and child custody-specific tests (e.g., the Bricklin scales, ASPECT, Parent-Child Relationship Inventory; see Ackerman, this volume;Connell, this volume;Otto et al, 2000;Yañez & Fremouw, 2004) and other parenting assessment instruments (i.e., Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Parenting Stress Index; Yañez & Fremouw, 2004).…”

The Rorschach: Its Use in Child Custody Evaluations

“…Others (Acklin, McDowell, & Verschell, 2000;Bornstein, 2001;Exner, 2003;Ganellen, 2001;Meyer, 2001;Meyer & Archer, 2001;Ritzler, Erard, & Pettigrew, 2002a, 2002bRosenthal, Hiller, Bornstein, Berry, & Brunell-Neuleib, 2001;Viglione & Hilsenroth, 2001;Weiner, 2001) have refuted complaints about the Rorschach. Many of these authors note that problems with the Rorschach are ones of which the competent practitioner is aware.…”

“…The child custody evaluator who wants to feel secure in using this instrument can review these various articles, with particular attention to Weiner's (2001) article, articles by Ritzler et al (2002aRitzler et al ( , 2002b, and recent surveys about the use of the Rorschach in child custody evaluations . In addition, evaluators can guard against the kind of problems highlighted by critics of the Rorschach with adherence to standardized administration and careful inquiry, use of specific decision-making strategies for scoring and interpreting, and consulting with other experts when questions arise.…”