A final reply to Grove and Barden: The relevance of the Rorschach Comprehensive System for expert testimony.

Abstract

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 Grove et al. have misconstrued the intent of Daubert/Kumho andmisidentify nonclinician academics as the appropriate evaluators of the admissibilityof the Rorschach. The authors add to their previous argument (2002) that theRorschach has sufficient reliability, validity, and error rates to be admissible underDaubert and conclude by countering the Grove et al. argument that the Journal ofPersonality Assessment is not an adequate forum for peer review of the Rorschach.