Areh Igor, Verkampt Fanny, Allan Alfred
Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
CLLE, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, Toulouse, France.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2021 May 26;29(2):183-205. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2021.1894260. eCollection 2022.
In relation to the admissibility of evidence obtained using projective personality tests arose in (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.
关于使用投射性人格测试所获证据的可采性问题出现在2018年。欧洲联盟法院认为，一份专家报告只有基于国际科学界的标准才能被接受，但并未规定这些标准具体是什么。欧洲心理学家确定应采用何种标准来判定一项测试是否适用于司法心理学用途似乎恰逢其时。我们提出了一些标准，然后将其应用于罗夏墨迹测验，因为在本案中使用了该测验，且它是投射性测试的一个典范。我们得出结论，罗夏墨迹测验不符合所提出的标准，即便没有明确的司法禁令，心理学家在法律程序中也应避免使用该测验。
