TY - JOUR
T1 - Legal Admissibility of the Rorschach and R-PAS
T2 - A Review of Research, Practice, and Case Law
AU - Viglione, Donald J.
AU - de Ruiter, Corine
AU - King, Christopher M.
AU - Meyer, Gregory J.
AU - Kivisto, Aaron J.
AU - Rubin, Benjamin A.
AU - Hunsley, John
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - The special issue editors selected us to form an “adversarial collaboration” because our publications and teaching encompass both supportive and critical attitudes toward the Rorschach and its recently developed system for use, the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS). We reviewed the research literature and case law to determine if the Rorschach and specifically R-PAS meet legal standards for admissibility in court. We included evidence on norms, reliability, validity, utility, general acceptance, forensic evaluator use, and response style assessment, as well as United States and selected European case law addressing challenges to mental examination motions, admissibility, and weight. Compared to other psychological tests, the Rorschach is not challenged at unusually high rates. Although the recently introduced R-PAS is not widely referenced in case law, evidence suggests that information from it is likely to be ruled admissible when used by a competent evaluator and selected variables yield scores that are sufficiently reliable and valid to evaluate psychological processes that inform functional psycholegal capacities. We identify effective and ethical but also inappropriate uses (e.g., psychological profiling) of R-PAS in criminal, civil, juvenile, and family court. We recommend specific research to clarify important aspects of R-PAS and advance its utility in forensic mental health assessment.
AB - The special issue editors selected us to form an “adversarial collaboration” because our publications and teaching encompass both supportive and critical attitudes toward the Rorschach and its recently developed system for use, the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS). We reviewed the research literature and case law to determine if the Rorschach and specifically R-PAS meet legal standards for admissibility in court. We included evidence on norms, reliability, validity, utility, general acceptance, forensic evaluator use, and response style assessment, as well as United States and selected European case law addressing challenges to mental examination motions, admissibility, and weight. Compared to other psychological tests, the Rorschach is not challenged at unusually high rates. Although the recently introduced R-PAS is not widely referenced in case law, evidence suggests that information from it is likely to be ruled admissible when used by a competent evaluator and selected variables yield scores that are sufficiently reliable and valid to evaluate psychological processes that inform functional psycholegal capacities. We identify effective and ethical but also inappropriate uses (e.g., psychological profiling) of R-PAS in criminal, civil, juvenile, and family court. We recommend specific research to clarify important aspects of R-PAS and advance its utility in forensic mental health assessment.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125352464&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00223891.2022.2028795
DO - 10.1080/00223891.2022.2028795
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35180040
AN - SCOPUS:85125352464
SN - 0022-3891
VL - 104
SP - 137
EP - 161
JO - Journal of Personality Assessment
JF - Journal of Personality Assessment
IS - 2
ER -