ABSTRACT
Professional sentiments about use of the Rorschach Inkblot Method in forensic settings have ranged widely. There are those who suggest that the Rorschach is an instrument that has absolutely no validity and should not be used in any clinical or forensic settings. The strongest proponent of this position is Dawes (1994), who contended that the Rorschach is a “shoddy” instrument and “is not a valid test of anything” (p. vii). He went so far as to recommend to everyone that if they ever undergo a psychological evaluation and someone takes out the Rorschach, that the person should leave the room. There are, of course, others who contend that the Rorschach is a valid and reliable instrument that can yield
very useful information when used properly. The clearest position on this approach has been outlined by Weiner (1996), who stated that those who are critical of the Rorschach have “not read the relevant literature of the last 20 years; or, having read it, they have not grasped its meaning” (p. 206). Given the need for empirically based methods when conducting forensic evaluations, the issues raised in this debate over use of the Rorschach Inkblot Method are of extreme importance to those who use the instrument in settings where their findings may be presented and challenged in court.
