Critical review of the use of the Rorschach in European courts.

In relation to the admissibility of evidence obtained using projective personality tests arose in F v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatam (2018). The Court of Justice of the European Union has held that an expert's report can only be accepted if it is based on the international scientific community's standards, but has refrained from stipulating what these standards are. It appears timely for European psychologists to decide what standards should be applied to determine whether or not a test is appropriate for psycholegal use. We propose standards and then apply them to the Rorschach because it was used in this case and is an exemplar of projective tests. We conclude that the Rorschach does not meet the proposed standards and that psychologists should abstain from using it in legal proceedings even in the absence of a clear judicial prohibition.

Forensic assessment may be based on common sense assumptions rather than science.

Forensic assessments must be scientifically founded, because courts should obtain expert evidence with acceptable evidential value. In Slovenia, professional guidelines of forensic personality assessment are too general and not always in line with international professional recommendations. Thus, experts have no strict guidelines which would lead them to scientifically grounded expert opinions. The aim of the research was to establish which tests are employed in forensic assessment in Slovenia and to what extent the professional guidelines for expert opinions are followed. A total of 166 forensic personality assessments were reviewed, representing the majority of expert opinions issued in the period 2003-2018. The results of the analysis revealed that questionable projective tests are most commonly used. Typically, an expert opinion was rendered based on two tests, at least one of which was projective. What is more, expert opinions did not include hypotheses, in-text citations, reference lists, or proof of the expert witness's competence. The tests and their results were mentioned briefly and inadequately, without mention of their reliability and validity. Possible malingering of the person being evaluated was not detected. Professional guidelines were not followed and non-standardized tests without normative values and of questionable scientific merit were predominantly used, despite lack of proof that they truly measure what they claim to be measuring. These findings significantly differ from the results of similar research, raising serious concerns over the credibility of expert opinions in Slovenia.