Re: Evaluating abuse cases

["James E. Hord. Jr., Ph.D." <DrHord@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 09:57 AM 2/8/99 -0600, you wrote:
>You ought not use the
Rorschach in a forensic evaluation, it doesn't have sufficient validity or
reliability. See what Robyn Dawes wrote abouat it in "The House of Cards."
Also, see:

Whoa there, Holly,.... the Rorschach is or is not a
useful tool for the psychologist to use depending on the psychologist.  I
don't conduct evaluations to meet some attorney's test or to protect
myself in court, but to lead me to an accurate evaluation of the client.
The Rorschach has gained a great deal of "reliability" via the
introduction of the 
Exner interpretive system, but I don't use that in
my work.  This is a test, as well as all projective testing, that you will
always hear as scary to use in court.  But, I promise you I know more
about answering the attorney's questions in this area, than he/she does in
composing the questions to ask.  Even if I were not going to report
the Rorschach, I would use it for its value to me in the
eval.

>Two or three subtests should not be used to estimate the
IQ. If you can't use it as specified in >the manual, use an IQ estimate
such as the Shipley.

Tilt again, Holly..... I am free to use any
technique I choose, including none, in the manner I described.  If I need
to know the IQ of a client (a rare event), I will administer the Wechsler
in its complete form.  However, if I simply want to assure myself of the
client's ability to meet the minimum standards for which the MMPI was
originally standardized, I will do as I indicated.  I do not report the
client's IQ based on such an abbreviation but that is not the purpose that
I described.  

>
>If you are using drawing tests, it is
important to limit their use to an interview technique and not try to use
any kind of sign interpretation.

Everything I know about a client
becomes part of my understanding and report.  To assume otherwise is
naive.  So when I use any projective testing, I gain some insight into how
this client functions and that becomes an intergral component of my
report.  I am not sure what you mean by "sign interpretation" (unless you
mean something like looking up a descriptor in a code book of some kind).
I am sure that the distinction of use that you are implying is very
abstract.

Jim Hord, Ph.D.