Introduction to Practice Matters Special Section on the Rorschach

Abstract

It is with great pleasure that I introduce the Psychological Injury and the Law (PIL) Special Section on the Rorschach and especially the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS; Meyer, Viglione, Mihura, Erard, & Erdberg, 2011). Numerous surveys have indicated that the Rorschach is one of the most widely used psychological tests in clinical and forensic practice (Archer, BuffingtonVollum, Stredny, & Handel, 2006; Camara, Nathan, & Puente, 2000; Norcross & Karpiak, 2012), including in psychological injury evaluations (Boccaccini & Brodsky, 1999). While there have been numerous Rorschach systems (Exner, 1969), it is widely understood that, until recently, the Exner Comprehensive System (CS, Exner, 2003) was the only system with sufficient reliability and validity to be used in forensic settings (see Gacono, Evans, & Viglione, 2008). Yet, in recent years, a small group of critics (e.g., Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000) have raised questions about the validity of the Rorschach and have gone as far as taking the unprecedented step of calling for a “moratorium” on its use in clinical and forensic practice (Garb, 1999). These harsh critiques rest on a general misunderstanding of clinical and forensic practice and, not infrequently, a misrepresentation of the empirical literature (see Gacono & Evans, 2008 for a comprehensive treatment of the scientific, legal, and clinical foundations of the Rorschach in forensic practice and Evans (2008) on the admissibility of the CS Rorschach). A positive outcome of this often-contentious debate has been an increase in research on the Rorschach, the best of which is well represented in the articles in this Special Section and the development of the R-PAS. The Special Section opens with Joni Mihura’s discussion of the role of the Rorschach in comprehensive multi-method psychological assessment, the core of good forensic practice. Her analysis cogently argues for the incremental validity of performance-based measures over and above self-report measures such as the MMPI. Her argument is significantly advanced by her rather modest reference to her groundbreaking metaanalysis of main Rorschach variables (Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, & Bombel, 2012), which forms the empirical backbone of the R-PAS. In this author’s opinion, the meta-analysis by Mihura et al. (2012) is the most important empirical advance in Rorschach research since Exner’s original publication of the CS (Exner, 1974). Next up is Gregory Meyer and Josh Eblin’s systematic and thorough overview of the R-PAS, the newest Rorschach system and the only system other than the CS with a comprehensive and well-researched empirical base. This introduction to the R-PAS provides a summary of the evolution and scientific foundation of this exciting development in Rorschach assessment. The authors discuss the progress of the R-PAS beyond the CS and offer the R-PAS as the next generation, empirically supported Rorschach assessment. Their arguments are compelling and seasoned forensic psychologists should carefully consider the R-PAS for adoption based on empirical sturdiness. With the scientific foundation of the R-PAS now well covered, what follows is Robert Erard’s carefully reasoned article on the use of R-PAS for forensic consultation and expert testimony in psychological injury cases. Erard F. B. Evans Clinical & Forensic Psychologist, Asheville, NC, USA