More Challenges Since Wikipedia: The Effects of Exposure to Internet Information About the Rorschach on Selected Comprehensive System Variables

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

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.

Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts

In relation to the admissibility of evidence obtained using projective personality tests arose in F v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatam (2018). The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that an expert's report can only be accepted if it is based on the international scientific community's standards, but has refrained from stipulating what these standards are. It appears timely for European psychologists to decide what standards should be applied to determine whether or not a test is appropriate for psycholegal use. We propose standards and then apply them to the Rorschach because it was used in this case and is an exemplar of projective tests. We conclude that the Rorschach does not meet the proposed standards and that psychologists should abstain from using it in legal proceedings even in the absence of a clear judicial prohibition.

The impact of exposure to Internet-based information about the Rorschach and the MMPI-2 on psychiatric outpatients' ability to simulate mentally healthy test performance

To examine the impact of Internet-based information about how to simulate being mentally healthy on the Rorschach (Exner, 2003) and the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989), 87 psychiatric outpatients completed the tests under 4 conditions: uncoached and Internet-coached outpatients under faking healthy instructions (faking patients and Internet-faking patients) and patients and nonpatients under standard instructions (standard patients and standard nonpatients). On the Rorschach, faking patients and Internet-faking patients did not manage to portray healthy test performance and, like standard patients, revealed a significantly greater number of perceptual and cognitive disturbances than standard nonpatients. Faking patients scored in the psychopathological direction on most variables. Internet-faking patients produced constricted protocols with significantly higher F% (57%) and lower use of provoking and aggressive contents than the other groups. On the MMPI-2, faking patients and Internet-faking patients were able to conceal symptoms and, like standard nonpatients, scored in the normal range on the clinical scales. The validity scale L successfully detected the faking patients and the Internet-faking patients, whereas the F scale only distinguished the Internet-faking patients and K only the faking patients. We conclude that Internet-based information could threaten test validity.