Premium
PICKING CHERRIES WITH BLINDERS ON: A COMMENT ON ERICKSON ET AL. (2007) REGARDING THE USE OF TESTS IN FAMILY COURT*
Author(s) -
Erard Robert E.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
family court review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.171
H-Index - 4
eISSN - 1744-1617
pISSN - 1531-2445
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00137.x
Subject(s) - projective test , rorschach test , psychology , argument (complex analysis) , test (biology) , reliability (semiconductor) , social psychology , clinical psychology , psychoanalysis , medicine , paleontology , biology , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics
Erickson, Lilienfeld, and Vitacco's (2007/this issue) review of the suitability and limitations of psychological tests invites legal and mental health professionals to rely on it as an objective guide for selecting, using, and admitting psychological tests in family court matters. Unfortunately, their discussion is marred by a pronounced bias in favor of multiscale, objective personality inventories and against performance‐based or projective instruments. This bias is evident not only in their unbalanced emphasis on the strengths of the former and weaknesses of the latter, but also in their use of selective citations and loaded language in launching what amounts to a polemical argument in support of tests that they favor. Their discussion of the Rorschach inkblot test is particularly misleading. This article refutes their unwarranted criticisms of the theoretical underpinnings of the Rorschach test, its research base, its norms, its interscorer reliability, the validity of its scores, and its admissibility in the courtroom. The value of multimethod assessments that include the use of direct clinical observation of performance under standardized conditions in custody evaluations is highlighted.