ABSTRACT
The Rorschach is one of the most widely used, openly accepted, and frequently requested tests in forensic psychology practice (Meloy, 1991; Piotrowski, 1996; Weiner, Exner, & Sciara, 1996). It consistently meets the rigors of forensic scrutiny (Weiner et al., 1996). Weiner et al. (1996) found that in 7,934 recent federal and state court cases, in which psychologists presented Rorschach data, 6 cases were challenged and in just one the testimony was excluded. Uniformly, where challenges are sustained, it has not been the Rorschach’s psychometric properties (Viglione & Meyer, chap. 2, this vol.) that have been impeached, but rather the psychologist’s interpretations (Meloy, chap. 4, this vol.; Meloy, Hanson, & Weiner, 1997). Discredited interpretations were either too broad (used to prove a crime was committed), too narrow (aiding in diagnosis formulation without linking them to the forensic issue), or irrelevant to the legal issue before the court. Accordingly, these three caveats suggest potential pitfalls in Rorschach testimony.
