- B.A. in Psychology, Yale UniversityPh.D. in Clinical Psychology, Long Island UniversityDistinguished Professor, Alliant International University, San DiegoResearchedit
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Although the Rorschach is widely used in child custody evaluations, its contributions are often underestimated. As an evidence-supported, performance-based method, it adds incremental validity to self-report findings. It yields insights... more
Although the Rorschach is widely used in child custody evaluations, its contributions are often underestimated. As an evidence-supported, performance-based method, it adds incremental validity to self-report findings. It yields insights about perceptual and coping styles, reality testing and logical thinking, emotional regulation and sensitivity, and relational schemas. Some evaluators hesitate to use the Rorschach due to concerns about reliability and validity, admissibility, and courtroom presentation. R-PAS, a relatively new Rorschach system, shows particular promise in addressing such concerns. It selects and organizes variables according to their degree of empirical support and clinical meaningfulness, uses internationally relevant, nonpathologizing reference data, uses contemporary psychometric statistical methods, and presents results in a format that is easy for a court to understand.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Ninety-eight adult nonpatients from Greece were administered the Rorschach according to the Rorschach Comprehensive Systems (CS; Exner, 2003) procedures. These participants were of Greek heritage, were older than 21 years of age, and... more
Ninety-eight adult nonpatients from Greece were administered the Rorschach according to the Rorschach Comprehensive Systems (CS; Exner, 2003) procedures. These participants were of Greek heritage, were older than 21 years of age, and resided in Greece. Participants were residents of an urban area, Athens, as well as residents of provincial areas including smaller cities and villages. The examiner was a native Greek and of Greek heritage and administered the protocols in Greek. Exclusion criteria are described. Interrater reliability statistics at the response level are presented along with scores for CS variables.
Research Interests:
Abstract The special issue editors selected us to form an “adversarial collaboration” because our publications and teaching encompass both supportive and critical attitudes toward the Rorschach and its recently developed system for use,... more
Abstract The special issue editors selected us to form an “adversarial collaboration” because our publications and teaching encompass both supportive and critical attitudes toward the Rorschach and its recently developed system for use, the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS). We reviewed the research literature and case law to determine if the Rorschach and specifically R-PAS meet legal standards for admissibility in court. We included evidence on norms, reliability, validity, utility, general acceptance, forensic evaluator use, and response style assessment, as well as United States and selected European case law addressing challenges to mental examination motions, admissibility, and weight. Compared to other psychological tests, the Rorschach is not challenged at unusually high rates. Although the recently introduced R-PAS is not widely referenced in case law, evidence suggests that information from it is likely to be ruled admissible when used by a competent evaluator and selected variables yield scores that are sufficiently reliable and valid to evaluate psychological processes that inform functional psycholegal capacities. We identify effective and ethical but also inappropriate uses (e.g., psychological profiling) of R-PAS in criminal, civil, juvenile, and family court. We recommend specific research to clarify important aspects of R-PAS and advance its utility in forensic mental health assessment.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article reviews published, journal articles informing on the conditions of use, strengths, weaknesses, and optimal cut scores of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29; Viglione & Giromini, 2020 ). To provide more accurate... more
This article reviews published, journal articles informing on the conditions of use, strengths, weaknesses, and optimal cut scores of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29; Viglione & Giromini, 2020 ). To provide more accurate information on the convergent and incremental validity, hit rates, and optimal cut scores of the IOP-29, in addition to reviewing all published IOP-29 studies, we also retrieved the datasets associated with each of those studies and performed some additional analyses. Taken together, the findings presented in this quantitative literature review indicate that (a) the IOP-29 correlates more strongly with other symptom validity tests (SVTs) than with other performance validity tests (PVTs), (b) the IOP-29 yields incremental validity when used together with other validity checks, (c) its classification accuracy compares favorably to that of other established tools, and (d) its suggested cut scores perform similarly well across various diagnoses and contexts. When considering the 3777 IOP-29 protocols included in the statistical analyses comparing credible ( k = 16) versus noncredible ( k = 17) presentations, the standard IOP-29 cut score of False Disorder probability Score ≥ .50 yielded a weighted mean sensitivity of .86 ( weighted SD = .07; range : .63–.96) at a weighted mean specificity of .92 ( weighted SD = .06; range : .79–1.00). The weighted mean Cohen’s d was 3.02 (weighted SD = .98; range : 1.48–5.31), and the weighted mean AUC was .95 (weighted SD = .04; range : .83–1.00). These excellent statistics, however, could be inflated by the fact that almost all of the examined studies used a simulation research paradigm.
Research Interests: Psychology and Statistics
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Abstract Evaluating the credibility of the respondent’s cognitive and psychological complaints is a core component of forensic mental health assessment. The Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) and a new IOP-Memory module (IOP-M) are... more
Abstract Evaluating the credibility of the respondent’s cognitive and psychological complaints is a core component of forensic mental health assessment. The Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) and a new IOP-Memory module (IOP-M) are designed specifically for that purpose. Initial research suggests that they might provide practitioners with a quick and thus potentially efficient check of an examinee’s presentation credibility, based on the integration of both symptom and performance validity indicators. To contribute to emerging research on this topic, this study used a simulation design to examine the validity of the IOP-29 and IOP-M and their robustness in detecting coached feigning of schizophrenia. It is the first to extend this duo of measures to a French sample. Results from 115 volunteers supported the effectiveness of both IOP instruments. Because all participants were male, however, our findings may not generalize to females.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
序説 実施法 基本的コード化 上級用コード化 上級用明確化 形態水準表 コード化の練習 反応水準からプロトコル水準への変換 基準的参照データ 解釈への勧告 臨床事例 反応数最適化実施法 形態水準表の発展 信頼性 変数の選択と妥当性 基準的参照データの作成
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This chapter addresses current evidence concerning the Rorschach Inkblot Test relevant to forensic practice. We present a selective overview of research findings and some new data to help explicate the scientific and empirical foundations... more
This chapter addresses current evidence concerning the Rorschach Inkblot Test relevant to forensic practice. We present a selective overview of research findings and some new data to help explicate the scientific and empirical foundations of the test. The focus is primarily on psychometric issues of reliabi Iity, val idity, normative reference values, and util ity. Even when limiting ourselves to these topics, we are selective because it is not possible to address them comprehensively within a single chapter. We focus on topics of most interest in the forensic arena and that have attracted the most research and controversy lately. I There is no attempt to select research that supports or does not support the test, but rather a bias for selecting recent versus older and well-known and established evidence. This review emphasizes Rorschach variables from the Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 2003), but non-CS variables are included where relevant. In response to pressing concerns of mo...
Research Interests:
We investigated the classification accuracy of the Inventory of Problems - 29 (IOP-29), its newly developed memory module (IOP-M) and the Fifteen Item Test (FIT) in an Australian community sample (N = 275). One third of the participants... more
We investigated the classification accuracy of the Inventory of Problems - 29 (IOP-29), its newly developed memory module (IOP-M) and the Fifteen Item Test (FIT) in an Australian community sample (N = 275). One third of the participants (n = 93) were asked to respond honestly, two thirds were instructed to feign mild TBI. Half of the feigners (n = 90) were coached to avoid detection by not exaggerating, half were not (n = 92). All measures successfully discriminated between honest responders and feigners, with large effect sizes (d ≥ 1.96). The effect size for the IOP-29 (d ≥ 4.90), however, was about two-to-three times larger than those produced by the IOP-M and FIT. Also noteworthy, the IOP-29 and IOP-M showed excellent sensitivity (>90% the former, > 80% the latter), in both the coached and uncoached feigning conditions, at perfect specificity. Instead, the sensitivity of the FIT was 71.7% within the uncoached simulator group and 53.3% within the coached simulator group, at a nearly perfect specificity of 98.9%. These findings suggest that the validity of the IOP-29 and IOP-M should generalize to Australian examinees and that the IOP-29 and IOP-M likely outperform the FIT in the detection of feigned mTBI.