Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses

A reply to Grove and Barden (1999) re: The admissibility of testimony under Daubert/Kumho analyses

Bibliographic Data

ID12434697
AuthorsBarry A Ritzler (corresponding author), Barry Ritzler, Robert Erard (0000-0002-4848-5700), Gary Pettigrew
Year2002
Volume8
Issue2
Pages201-215
Publication date2002-06-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePsychology Public Policy and Law (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1076-8971 • E-ISSN: 1939-1528
PublisherAmerican Psychological Association (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1037/1076-8971.8.2.201
OpenAlexW2162480984
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited48

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 reasonable error rate, (e) standardized, (f) accepted by a relevant and substantial scientific community, and (g) appropriate for a wide range of forensic issues. In drawing their negative conclusions, W. M. Grove and R. C. Barden overlooked or minimized a substantial body of empirical data supporting the reliability and validity of the Rorschach Comprehensive System and misinterpreted the language and intent of the Supreme Court decisions

Criminology · Political science · Rorschach test · Law · Medical and Biological Sciences · Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation · Psychological Testing and Assessment · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub