Barry Ritzler
Biographic Data
| ID | 10533348 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Barry Ritzler |
| GIVEN NAMES | Barry |
| FAMILY NAME | Ritzler |
| SIGNATURE | RITZLER B |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 4 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 2 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 4 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2002 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2002 |
| H-INDEX | 1 |
A final reply to Grove and Barden
Eastern Louisiana Mental Health SystemIn reply to Grove et al. (2002), the authors attempt to limit their focus on thequestion of admissibility of the Rorschach Comprehensive System for experttestimony under the guidelines of the U.S. Supreme Court Daubert/Kumho/Joinerdecisions. The article refutes the argument that a “raging controversy” exists asevidence that the Rorschach is not accepted in the field of psychology. The authorsagain argue that …
Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses
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 re…
A final reply to Grove and Barden
Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses
Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses
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 re…
A final reply to Grove and Barden
Eastern Louisiana Mental Health SystemIn reply to Grove et al. (2002), the authors attempt to limit their focus on thequestion of admissibility of the Rorschach Comprehensive System for experttestimony under the guidelines of the U.S. Supreme Court Daubert/Kumho/Joinerdecisions. The article refutes the argument that a “raging controversy” exists asevidence that the Rorschach is not accepted in the field of psychology. The authorsagain argue that …
Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses
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 re…
A final reply to Grove and Barden
Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses
Law (4 works) · Political science (4 works) · Psychological Testing and Assessment (4 works) · Psychology (4 works) · Rorschach test (4 works) · Criminology (3 works) · Social Psychology (3 works) · Law (2 works) · Medical and Biological Sciences (2 works) · Relevance (law (2 works)