Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Projective Personality Assessment in Child Custody Evaluations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Child Custody

  • 1825 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews the utilization of projective personality tests in custody cases, including the frequency in which various projective tests are employed, as well as the reliability and validity of these instruments. There is a particular emphasis on the Rorschach Inkblot Methodology (RIM) and the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) and empirical evidence supporting the utility of this instrument. Specific RIM ratios and percentages are examined for their usefulness in custody evaluations. Furthermore, a literature review of the RIM in forensic evaluations and custody cases is presented. Strengths and weaknesses of the RIM are also addressed. In addition, other projective tests, including the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), various figure drawings (Draw-A-Person, House-Tree-Person, Kinetic Family Drawing and Draw-A-Person-in-the-Rain) and Incomplete Sentences/Sentence Completion test are examined for their utility in custody evaluations, as well as their reliability and validity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, M. J. (2001). Clinican’s guide to child custody evaluations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, M. J. & Ackerman, M. C. (1997). Custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 28, 137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acklin, M. W., McDowell, C. J., Verschell, M. S. & Chan, D. (2000). Interobserver agreement, intraobserver reliability, and the Rorschach comprehensive system. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 15–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2009). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law proceedings. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, R. P. (2006). Forensic uses of clinical assessment instruments. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2006). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation, Madison: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, J. D., Archer, R. P. & Imhof, E. A. (1994). Time requirements of psychological testing: A survey of practitioners. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 239–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blunentritt, T. L. (1997). Reliability and validity of automatic scoring rules for the 18-halves of the Washington University Sentence Completion of ego development. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 57(10-B), 6635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, R. F. (2012). Rorschach score validation as a model for a 21st century personality assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(1), 26–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bow, J. & Quinell, F. (2001). Psychologists current practices and procedures in child custody evaluations: Five years after the American Psychological Association guidelines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 261–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricklin, B. (1999). The contribution of psychological tests to custody-relevant evaluations. In R.M. Galatzer-Levy & L. Kraus (Eds.), The scientific basis of child custody decisions (pp. 120–156). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P., Tellegen, A. & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1992). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents(MMPI-A) manual for administration. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calloway, G. C. (2005). The Rorschach: Its use in child custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody, 2(1–2), 143–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantino, G., Colon-Malgady, G., Colon-Malgady, R.G. & Perez, A. (1991). Assessment of attention deficit disorder using a thematic apperception technique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, P. (1991). The development of defense mechanisms: Theory, research and assessment. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, P. (2006). Protecting the self: Defense mechanisms in action. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, E. M. (2000). Divorce wars: Interventions with families in conflict. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwisle, D. (1972). To dispel fantasies about fantasy-based measures of achievement and motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 77(6), 377–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erard, R. E. (2007). Picking cherries with blinders on: A comment on Erickson, et. al. (2007), regarding the use of tests in family court. Family Court Review, 45(2), 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erard, R.E. (2012). Expert testimony using the Rorschach performance assessment system in psychological injury cases. Psychological Injury and Law, 5(2), 122–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, S. K., Lilienfeld, S. O. & Vitacco, M. J. (2007a). A critical examination of the suitability and limitations of psychological tests in family court. Family Court Review, 45(2), 157–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, S. K., Lilienfeld, S. O. & Vitacco, M. J. (2007b). Failing the burden of proof: The science and ethics of projective tests in custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 45(2), 185–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, F.B. & Schultz, B.M. (2008). The Rorschach in child custody and parenting plan evaluations: A new conceptualization. In C. B Gacono, F. B. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & NA. Gacono (Eds.), The Handbook of Rorschach Assessment (pp. 233–254). New York:. NewYork: Routledge/Taylor Francis group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exner, J. E. (2005). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system: Basic foundations and principles of interpretation (Vol. 1, 4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exner, J. E. & Erdberg, P. (2003). The Rorschach: Advanced interpretation. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, S. (1977). The achievement motive and its measurement. Where are we now? British Journal of Psychology, 68, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freederfeld, R. N., Ornduff, S. R. & Kelsey, R. M. (1995). Object relations and physical abuse: A TAT analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(3), 552–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganellen, R. J. (1996). Integrating Rorschach and the MMPI-2 in personality assessment. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garb, H., Wood, J. M., Lilienfeld, S. O. & Nezrowski, M. T. (2005). Roots of Rorschach controversy. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groth-Marnat, G. (2003). Handbook of psychological assessment. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove, W., Barden, C., Garb, H. & Lilienfeld, S. (2002). Failure of Rorschach comprehensive, 97–118. System based testimony to be admissible under the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho standard. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 8, 216–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarnaccia, V., Dill, C., Sabatino, S. & Southwick, S. (2001). Scoring accuracy using the comprehensive system for the Rorschach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 464–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, M. A. & Castagna, N. (2001). The real numbers: Psychological testing in custody evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 32(3), 269–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbard, S. (2003). A critique of Lilienfeld et al.’s (2000) “The scientific status of projective techniques.” Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 260–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibbard, S., Farmer, L., Wells, C. & Defillipo, E. (1994). Validation of Cramer’s defense mechanism manual for the TAT. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiller, J. B., Rosenthal, R., Bornstein, R. F., Berry, D. T. & Brunell-Neuleib, S. (1999). A comparative meta-analysis of Rorschach and MMPI validity. Psychological Assessment, 11, 278–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, C. F. & Kenney, L. M. (1994). A Rorschach study of the psychological characteristics of parents engaged in child custody/visitation disputes. Paper presented at the 103rd annual convention of the American Psychological Association, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunsley, J.L., Lee, C.M. & Wood, J.M. (2003). Controversial and questionable assessment techniques. In S.O. Lilienfeld, J.M. Lohr & S.J. Lynn (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in contemporary clinical psychology. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hy, S. & Loevinger, J. (1996). Washington University sentence completion test of ego development. St. Louis: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joiner, T. E. & Schmidt, K. L. (1997). Drawing conclusions—or not—from drawings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69(3), 476–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M. & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 27–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, S.J. (1993). Art psychotherapy evaluations of children in custody disputes. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 20(2), 153–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G. J., Hilsenroth, M. J., Baxter, D., Exner, J. E., Fowler, J. C. & Piers, C. C. (2002). An examination of interrater reliability for scoring the Rorschach comprehensive system in eight data sets. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 219–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G. J, Viglione, D. J, Mihura, J. L, Erard, R. E. & Erdberg, P. (2011). The Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS). University of Toledo press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihura, J. L, Meyer, G. J, Dunitrascu, N & Bombel, G. (2013). The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the comprehensive system. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 548–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, H. (1943). Thematic apperception test. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ornduff, S. R. & Kelsey, R. M. (1996). Object relations of sexually and physically abused female children: A TAT analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 91–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, K. C., Hanson, R. K. & Hunsley, J. (1988). MMPI, Rorschach and WAIS: A meta-analytic comparison of reliability, stability, and validity. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 367–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pistole, D. R. & Ornduff, S. R. (1994). TAT assessment of sexually abused girls: An analysis of manifest content. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 211–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riethmiller, R. J. & Handler, L. (1997). The great figure drawing controversy: The integration of research and clinical practice. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 488–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzler, B. (1996). The status of personality assessment. Presidential address at a meeting for the Society of Personality Assessment, Denver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, C. J. (2012). A validity study of projective drawings. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 73(3–B).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossini, E. & Moretti, R. (1997). Thematic apperception test interpretation: Practice recommendations from a survey of clinical psychology doctoral programs accredited by the American Psychological Association. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 393–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, D.S. (2014). The effects of Rorschach coverage on the internet on examinee’s ability to “fake good” in a simulated child custody context. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 74(9–B).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, T.W., Erdberg, P. & Haroian, J. (1999). Current non-patient data for the Rorschach, WAIS-R, and MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J., Hoppe, C. F., Lee, S. M., Olesen, N. W. & Walters, M. G. (2008). Child custody litigants: Rorschach data from a large sample. In C. B. Gacono, F. Barton, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L. A. Gacono (Eds.), The handbook of forensic rorschach assessment (pp. 445–464). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, P. (2011). Conducting child custody evaluations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. (1986). An object relational theory of affect maturity. In M. Kisse (Ed.), Assessing object relations phenomena (pp. 207–224). New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wangberg, D. K. (2000). Child custody practices: A survey of experienced clinical psychologists. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 61(2-B), 1100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, I. (1997). Current status of the Rorschach Inkblot Method. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, I. (2013). The Rorschach Inkblot Method. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, I. B. (2005). Rorschach assessment in child custody cases. Journal of Child Custody, 2(3), 99–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, I. B. (2007). Rorschach assessment in forensic cases. In A. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles (pp. 127–153). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, I. B. (2013). The Rorschach Inkblot Method. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westen, D. (1991). Clinical assessment of object relations using the TAT. Journal of Personality Assessment, 56, 56–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, D. G. & Stewart, A. J. (1977). Power motive reliability as a function of retest instructions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 436–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T. & Stejskal, W. J. (1996). The comprehensive system for the Rorschach: A critical examination. Psychological Science, 7(1), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Garb, H. & Lilienfeld, S. (2001). Problems with the norms of the comprehensive system for the Rorschach: Methodological and conceptual considerations. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8, 397–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. M., Nezworski, M. T., Lilienfeld, S. & Garb, H. (2003). What’s wrong with the Rorschach? Science confronts the controversial inkblot test. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 2324 Scott Rd, 60062, Northbrook, IL, USA

    Mark L. Goldstein PhD

Authors
  1. Mark L. Goldstein PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark L. Goldstein PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Northbrook, IL, USA

    Mark L. Goldstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Goldstein, M. (2016). Projective Personality Assessment in Child Custody Evaluations. In: Goldstein, M. (eds) Handbook of Child Custody. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13942-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation