Assessing reliability: Critical corrections for a critical examination of the Rorschach Comprehensive System.

(CS) lacked many essential pieces of reliability data and that the available vidence indicated that scoring reliability may be little better than chance. Contrary to their assertions, the author suggests why rater agreement should focus on responses rather than summary scores, how field reliability moves away from testing CS scoring principles, and how no psychometric distinction exists between a percentage correct and a percentage agreement index. Also, after reviewing problematic qualities of kappa, a meta-analysis ofpublished ata is presented indicating that the CS has excellent chance-corrected interrater reliability (Estimated K, M =.86, range =.72-.96). Finally, the author notes that Wood et al. ignored at least 17 CS studies of test-retest reliability that contain many of the important data they said were missing. The author concluded that Wood et al.'s erroneous assertions about he more elementary topic of reliability make suspect their assertions about he more complex topic of validity. The interchange between Wood, Nezworski, and Stejskal (1996a, 1996b) and Exner (1996) concerning the Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS) may have left some readers won-dering where the truth resides between their opposing positions.