An Interrater Reliability Study of Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R–PAS) Raw and Complexity-Adjusted Scores

Recently, the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R–PAS; Meyer, Viglione, Mihura, Erard, & Erdberg, 2011) was introduced to overcome some possible limitations of the Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 2003) while continuing its efforts to link Rorschach inferences to their evidence base. An important, technical modification to the scoring system is that R–PAS interpretations are based on both standard scores and complexity-adjusted scores. Two previous U.S. studies reported good to excellent interrater reliability (IRR) for the great majority of R–PAS variables; however, IRR of complexity-adjusted scores has never been investigated. Furthermore, no studies have yet investigated R–PAS IRR in Europe. To extend this literature, we examined R–PAS IRR of Page 1 and Page 2 raw and complexity-adjusted scores with 112 Italian Rorschach protocols. We collected a large sample of both clinical and nonclinical Rorschach protocols, each of which was coded separately by 2 independent raters. Results demonstrated a mean intraclass correlation of .78 (SD = .14) for raw scores and.74 (SD = .14) for complexity-adjusted scores. Overall, for both raw and complexity-adjusted values, most of the variables were characterized by good to excellent IRR.