The Rorschach in Forensic Practice

Gacono, Carl B.; Evans, F. Barton; Viglione, Donald J.

doi:10.1300/j158v02n03_03

Cited by 22 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there is certainly controversy and disagreement about the use of projective instruments in assessing not just personality, but also psychopathology (e.g., Gacono, 2002), psychologists must remember that these are empirical questions that remain to be decided by the evidence. More to the point, Blais…”

Section: Implicit Projective and Objective Measures Of Personalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality Measurement and Testing: An Overview

Boyle¹,

Matthews

Saklofske

2008

The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 2 — Personality Measurement and Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A colleague recently remarked: "Psychologists who specialize in the study of personality and individual differences spend a lot of time coming up with various descriptions of people, like Machiavellianism, external locus of control, openness to experience, and Neuroticism. Even more effort is spent trying to measure these ideas with tests like the MMPI-2, brief anxiety scales, and Rorschach Inkblots. But do they really tell us anything about human behaviour in general or about the individual? Does it make a difference in how we view people, select them for jobs, or guide therapy choices and assist in evaluating outcomes"? This is a very loaded question and one that appears to challenge both the technical adequacy of our personality measures, but especially the construct and criterion validity or effectiveness of personality instruments in describing individual differences, clinical diagnosis and guiding and evaluating interventions. Technically; there are very few actual "tests" of personality-the Objective-Analytic Battery being an exception. Most socalled "tests" of personality are in fact self-report scales or reports of others' rating scales.Such scales quantify subjective introspections, or subjective impressions of others' personality make-up. At the same time, it is a relevant question and one that we will continue to face in the study of personality and the application of the findings, including assessment of personality, within psychological practice areas such as clinical, and school psychology, and within settings such as the military, business and sporting fields, among 2 others. Vol. 1 in this two volume series is devoted to a critical analysis of the theories, models and resulting research that drive the personality descriptions and assessment discussed in Volume 2. Demonstrating both the construct and practical validity of personality descriptions is essential to psychology as a scientific discipline and empirically grounded practice/profession. The Status of Psychological AssessmentIn a recently published paper focusing on psychological assessment, the following claim was made:Data from more than 125 meta-analyses on test validity and 800 samples examining multimethod assessment suggest four general conclusions: (a) Psychological test validity is strong and compelling, (b) psychological test validity is comparable to medical test validity, (c) distinct assessment methods provide unique sources of information, and (d) clinicians who rely exclusively on interviews are prone to incomplete understandings (Meyer et al., 2001, p. 128).The authors also stated that multiple methods of assessment in the hands of "skilled clinicians" further enhanced the validity of the assessments so that the focus should now move on to how we use these scales in clinical practice to inform diagnosis and prescription.3 This is a remarkable accomplishment, if accurate, and even a bold claim that has not gone unchallenged. Claims (a) and (b) have been attacked on various grounds (e.g., see critiques by Fernandez-Ballesteros...

show abstract

Section: Implicit Projective and Objective Measures Of Personalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality Measurement and Testing: An Overview

Boyle¹,

Matthews

Saklofske

2008

The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 2 — Personality Measurement and Testing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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).…”

Section: Psychological Testing In Child Custody Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Flens¹

2005

Journal of Child Custody

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The responsible use of psychological tests in child custody evaluations requires an advanced understanding of both psychological issues of test selection and legal criteria regarding admissibility of James R. Flens, PsyD, has a private practice in Brandon, FL. His practice is centered around family law-related evaluations, including evaluations regarding custody, modification and relocation, work product review, and consultation with both the legal community and custodial evaluation professionals. He is also an instrument-rated pilot and factory-trained bicycle mechanic.

show abstract

“…The clinician must identify reliable and valid methods for assessing specific components of each domain. While the PCL:YV and other psychopathy assessment instruments may prove useful for collecting and quantifying certain relevant dispositional and historical variables, other methods are needed (Gacono, Evans, & Viglione, 2002).…”

Section: Psychopathy Assessment In Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiating emotional disturbance from social maladjustment: Assessing psychopathy in aggressive youth

Gacono

Hughes

2004

Psychology in the Schools

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997) requires identification of emotional disturbance by special education criteria. It also requires that emotional disturbance be distinguished from social maladjustment. In some cases, a thorough evaluation of the child's character pathology can aid in this determination. While methods such as the Rorschach, BASC, and MMPI-A are useful in understanding behavior and personality, psychopathy assessment may be particularly useful for organizing opinions in this matter. In this article we discuss the relevance of psychopathy's two-factor structure in formulating a schema for making the differentiation between emotional disturbance and social maladjustment and review methods for gathering information about this troublesome aspect of character pathology.

show abstract

The Rorschach in Forensic Practice

Cited by 22 publications

References 54 publications

Personality Measurement and Testing: An Overview

Personality Measurement and Testing: An Overview

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

Differentiating emotional disturbance from social maladjustment: Assessing psychopathy in aggressive youth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About