CS research listings
"The Rorschach Software of Choice"

Selected References for the Comprehensive System
Evidence and Issues

(revised August 15, 2006)

To date, four lists of references have been contributed; two from Dr. Greg Meyer, one from Dr. Irv Wiener, and two from Dr. Robert Erard. Some references appear in more than one listing,


Greg had this to say about his listings:

"I think the best citations you can offer are to the Special Series published in Psychological Assessment in September 1999 and December 2001. As part of this Special Series, the evidence and issues were thoroughly and sequentially debated by people on both sides of the issues and a meta-analytic review of Rorschach and MMPI validity was commissioned from Robert Rosenthal, a recognized expert in meta-analysis and person who has no investment in the outcome of the debate one way or the other. I’ve attached a list of abstracts for the articles in the Series."

"If someone doesn’t have the time or inclination to read the full Series, then I would recommend the final summary article that Bob Archer and I wrote. Archer and I have different takes on the Rorschach’s validity evidence and the article reflects our best effort to provide a balanced summary of its strengths and limitations for clinical practice."

Greg’s listings are provided in a downloadable .RTF file format.

Click here for Dr. Meyer’s 1st Series (6 references with abstracts).

Click here for Dr. Meyer’s 2nd Series (7 references with abstracts).


Dr. Irv Weiner has contributed an update of the listings he distributes at his workshops. He describes the list as a selection of recent and basic readings focused on documenting the utility and psychometric soundness of the Rorschach. He emphasizes that the list makes no claim to represent an exhaustive search of the literature.

Irv’s listings are provided in a downloadable .DOC file format.

Click here for Dr. Weiner’s listings (116 references).


Dr. Robert Erard contributed lists of articles focused on forensic and custody issues. Click here to access the most recent list. Below are other listings from Dr. Erard. As with other lists, we made no attempt to eliminate duplications.

McCann, J.T. (1998). Defending the Rorschach in court: An analysis of admissibility using legal and professional standards. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 125-144.

Reply to above:
Grove, W.M. & Barden, R.C. (1999). Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The admissibility of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 224-242.

Reply to above:
Ritzler, B., Erard, R. & Pettigrew, G. (2002). Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses: A reply to Grove and Barden (1999) Re: The admissibility of testimony under Daubert/Kumho Analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(2), 201-215.

Rejoinder to above:
Grove, WM, Barden, RC, Garb, HN, & Lilienfeld, SO. (2002). Failure of Rorschach-Comprehensive -System-Based Testimony to be Admissible Under the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho Standard. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(2), 216-234.

Rejoinder to above:
Ritzler, B., Erard, R. & Pettigrew (2002). A final reply to Grove and Barden: The relevance of the Rorschach Comprehensive System for expert testimony. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8(2), 235-246.

Hamel, Gallagher, & Soares. (2001). The Rorschach: Here we go again. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1(3), 79-88.

Reply to above:
Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M.T., Stejskal, W.J, & McKinzey, R.K. Problems of the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach in forensic settings: Recent developments. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1(3), 89-103.

Gacono, C.B. (2002). Introduction to a special series: Forensic psychodiagnostic testing. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2(3), 1-10.

Gacono, CB, Evans, FB, & Viglione, DJ (2002). The Rorschach in forensic practice. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 2(3), 33-53.

Additional issues:

Wood, J., Nezworski, M., Garb, H., & Lilienfeld, S. (2001). The misperception of psychopathology: Problems with the norms of the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8, 350-373.

Reply to above:
Meyer, G. (2001). Evidence to correct misperceptions about Rorschach norms. Clinical Psychology: Science and practice, 8, 389-396.

Ganellen, RJ (2001).Weighing evidence for the Rorschach’s validity: A response to Wood et al. (1999) [referring to Wood, Nezworski, Stejska., Garven & West, in Assessment, 6, 115-129]. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(1), 1-15.

Gacono, CB, Loving, J.L., & Bodholdt, R.H. (2001). The Rorschach and psychopathy: Toward a more accurate understanding of the research findings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(1), 16-38.

Bornstein, RF (2001). Clinical utility of the Rorschach Inkblot Method: Reframing the debate. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(1), 39-47.

Reply to above:
Wood, J., Lilienfeld, S., Nezworski, M. & Garb, H. (2001). Coming to grips with negative evidence for the Comprehensive System for the Rorschach: A comment on Gacono, Loving & Bodhold; Ganellen, and Bornstein. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(1), 48-70.