Response To Psychology: Critical Thinking Rorschach

Critical Thinking R-PAS Response Paper The Rorschach Inkblot test is one of the most iconic psychological tests that is shown on television and media worldwide. I believe this wide spread media has called into question the inkblot test’s clinical utility, reliability and usage in the field of psychology. This paper will summarize and critique four articles, two that are against the Rorschach and challenge its usage in different aspects of psychology and two that are for the Rorschach and believe that it adds value and has appropriate inter-rater reliability standards. Hunsley and Bailey (1999) argues that the Rorschach lacks clinical utility. To frame their argument, they conducted a review of literature and studies regarding the Rorschach,
Kivisto et al. (2013) does a review of the literature for R-PAS and also outlines the standards of admissibility of scientific testimony in a courtroom. The authors explain that the R-PAS, lacks empirical evidence and also does not meet the Frye, Daubert and Kumbo standards that are outlined by the federal court system that determines if scientific testimony can be admissible (Kivisto et al., 2013). Though Kivisto et al. (2013) argues that the R-PAS may one day meet these requirements, the R-PAS cannot be considered appropriate without proper reliability and validity standards and scientific proof. Though this article is against the R-PAS, I can agree that the federal court standards need to be upheld above all when using psychological testing in a court room as this can impact the
(2013) had the stronger argument when it comes to forensic settings, Viglione et al. (2012) definitely had the stronger argument when it came to reliability as opposed to the argument made by Hunsley and Bailey (1999). Although Viglione et al. (2012) discuss the inter-rater reliability for the R-PAS system, as opposed to the Comprehensive System, in my opinion this argument is stronger simply because the authors provided the statistical data to which they were referencing. Viglione et al. (2012) conducted a study that involved 50 different Rorschach records that were randomly selected. The sample consisted of six Rorschach records from children and 44 adult records including cases from non-patients, college students, outpatient facilities, forensic cases and clinical patients (Viglione et al., 2012). Viglione et al. (2012) had two graduate students rate the Rorschach records and then correlated the inter-rater