Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, & Feld (208.49.100.5) Akin Gump 0 returning visits
| ||
|---|---|---|
 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States | ||
(No referring link)
| ||
| 21 Aug | 01:42:59 PM | |
(No referring link)
| ||
| 21 Aug | 01:43:29 PM | |
(No referring link)
| ||
| 21 Aug | 01:43:31 PM | |
| (Encrypted Search) | ||
| 22 Aug | 01:01:48 PM | |
Thursday, August 22, 2013
I Got Their Attention!
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Conspiracy Against Rights?
In late October 1991 Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a
management partner at the Washington, DC office of the law firm of Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, my former employer, consulted a
psychiatrist named Gertrude
R. Ticho, MD (deceased) (then Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, The
George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry)
who advised him that my complaint of job harassment appeared to be the
product of a psychiatric "disorder" that might be associated with a risk
of violence, rendering me a direct threat in the workplace. Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights at 4, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961
(Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, Sept. 1, 1998) ("the firm . . .
learned [upon consulting a practicing psychiatrist] that [Mr.
Freedman's] behavior was indicative of a disorder known as 'ideas of
reference,' which is sometimes accompanied by violent behavior.').
Dr. Ticho did not assess me in person and thus her professional opinion was a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA's) so-called Goldwater rule which prohibits a psychiatrist from offering a professional psychiatric opinion about an individual without benefit of a personal exam and without obtaining the individual's consent for the opinion. Dr. Ticho's psychiatric opinion, upon which the U.S. Social Security Administration relied in making its disability determination that I became disabled and not suitable for employment effective October 29, 1991 (the date of Akin Gump's job termination), lacked any medical reliability and was defamatory.
The D.C. Department of Human Rights (DHR) admits that it considered but rejected my argument that Akin Gump's disability determination was invalid because Dr. Ticho's psychiatric opinion was made without examining me personally, thereby violating the APA's Goldwater Rule and rendering the opinion medically worthless. (The DHR implicitly also exonerated the action of Akin Gump partners, licenced professionals, in soliciting an unethical act from a psychiatrist, also a licensed professional.)
The DHR concluded in its Initial Determination (June 30, 1993): "Complainant submitted a 45 page response plus attachments as well as other correspondence in response to Respondent’s submission. . . . [Among other concerns h]e . . . contended that Respondent’s reliance upon the advice of the mental health professionals as conclusory and reached without personally examining him, was flawed. . . . We do not believe it is necessary to analyze and respond to each of them to reach a determination in this matter" (emphasis added).
What is the legal significance of the action of a District human rights agency in expressly exonerating a psychiatrist of her ethical infraction which was the sine qua non of the employer's determination that an employee was potentially violent and therefore posed a "direct threat in the workplace," denying that employee of his right to future employment under The Americans with Disabilities Act?
What is the legal significance of a District human rights agency in expressly exonerating District-licensed attorneys of liability for their action in denying an employee of his right to future employment under The Americans with Disabilities Act by soliciting an unethical act from a psychiatrist whose opinion that the employee was potentially violent (and therefore a direct threat in the workplace) was the foundation of the employer's termination decision?
Dr. Ticho did not assess me in person and thus her professional opinion was a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA's) so-called Goldwater rule which prohibits a psychiatrist from offering a professional psychiatric opinion about an individual without benefit of a personal exam and without obtaining the individual's consent for the opinion. Dr. Ticho's psychiatric opinion, upon which the U.S. Social Security Administration relied in making its disability determination that I became disabled and not suitable for employment effective October 29, 1991 (the date of Akin Gump's job termination), lacked any medical reliability and was defamatory.
The D.C. Department of Human Rights (DHR) admits that it considered but rejected my argument that Akin Gump's disability determination was invalid because Dr. Ticho's psychiatric opinion was made without examining me personally, thereby violating the APA's Goldwater Rule and rendering the opinion medically worthless. (The DHR implicitly also exonerated the action of Akin Gump partners, licenced professionals, in soliciting an unethical act from a psychiatrist, also a licensed professional.)
The DHR concluded in its Initial Determination (June 30, 1993): "Complainant submitted a 45 page response plus attachments as well as other correspondence in response to Respondent’s submission. . . . [Among other concerns h]e . . . contended that Respondent’s reliance upon the advice of the mental health professionals as conclusory and reached without personally examining him, was flawed. . . . We do not believe it is necessary to analyze and respond to each of them to reach a determination in this matter" (emphasis added).
What is the legal significance of the action of a District human rights agency in expressly exonerating a psychiatrist of her ethical infraction which was the sine qua non of the employer's determination that an employee was potentially violent and therefore posed a "direct threat in the workplace," denying that employee of his right to future employment under The Americans with Disabilities Act?
What is the legal significance of a District human rights agency in expressly exonerating District-licensed attorneys of liability for their action in denying an employee of his right to future employment under The Americans with Disabilities Act by soliciting an unethical act from a psychiatrist whose opinion that the employee was potentially violent (and therefore a direct threat in the workplace) was the foundation of the employer's termination decision?
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Social Security Fraud in Violation of 42 USC 1011
Deborah B. Garibay, RN, JD, CPHRM
Deputy General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
GW Medical Faculty Associates
2120 L St., NW, Suite 610
David F. Black, Esq.
General Counsel
U.S. Social Security Administration
Dear Mr. Black:
This will apprise the U.S. Social Security Administration of evidence tending to show that my Social Security Disability claim (no. xxx xx xxxx) is fraudulent, a felony in violation of 42 USC 1011.
1. In late October 1991 Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a management partner at the Washington, DC office of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, my former employer, consulted a psychiatrist named Gertrude R. Ticho, MD (deceased) (then Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry) who advised him that my complaint of job harassment appeared to be the product of a psychiatric "disorder" that might be associated with a risk of violence, rendering me a direct threat in the workplace. Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights at 4, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, Sept. 1, 1998) ("the firm . . . learned [upon consulting a practicing psychiatrist] that [Mr. Freedman's] behavior was indicative of a disorder known as 'ideas of reference,' which is sometimes accompanied by violent behavior.'). Dr. Ticho did not assess me in person and thus her professional opinion was a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA's) so-called Goldwater rule which prohibits a psychiatrist from offering a professional psychiatric opinion about an individual without benefit of a personal exam and without obtaining the individual's consent for the opinion. Dr. Ticho's psychiatric opinion, upon which the U.S. Social Security Administration relied in making its disability determination that I became disabled and not suitable for employment effective October 29, 1991 (the date of Akin Gump's job termination), lacked any medical reliability and was defamatory.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/12/social-security-administration-initial.html
2. In September 1992 I underwent a two-hour psychiatric assessment at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry. The assessing psychiatrist, Napoleon Cuenco, MD, diagnosed me with bipolar disorder. Earle W. Baughman, MD (703 836 9078), a supervising psychiatrist at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, DC, can verify that I do not suffer from bipolar disorder.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/11/psychiatric-assessment-george.html
3. In August 1993 Suzanne M. Pitts, MD (deceased) recommended that I take the anti-psychotic medication, Haldol for an unspecified psychotic disorder. There is some suggestion in handwritten notes prepared by Dr. Pitts that her medical recommendation was retaliatory, made in response to a complaint I had filed against her with the D.C. Board of Medicine.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/11/saving-best-for-last.html
4. In May 1994 I underwent comprehensive psychological testing at The George Washington University Medical Center performed by Yu-Ling Han under the supervision of William D. Fabian, Ph.D. The testing failed to disclose that I suffered from any psychiatric disorder of any kind and failed to disclose the presence of psychotic thought processes. I was not on any medication at the time of testing.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/10/psychological-test-results-gw-may-1994.html.
5. In February 1996 Dimitrios Georgopoulos, MD of The George Washington University Medical Center diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia, a psychotic mental illness. Earle W. Baughman, MD (703 836 9078), a supervising psychiatrist at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, DC, can verify that I do not suffer from paranoid schizophrenia.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/11/where-is-evidence-of-schizophrenia.html
6. In March 1996 I was administered the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WISC) by Ramin Mojtabai, MD (under the supervision of Robert Jenkins, Ph.D.) at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry. I scored 6 errors, the lowest meaningful score. The WISC is a test of psychotic thinking. A low score is considered a rule out for psychotic mental illness. I was not on any medication at the time of testing
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/11/psychological-testing-wisconsin-card.html
7. Currently, The George Washington University Medical Center Medical Faculty Associates apparently has no interest in conducting an internal investigation of this matter or of making a criminal referral to federal authorities about this matter.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2013/08/gw-thinks-im-nuts-great.html
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
202 362 7064
Deputy General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
GW Medical Faculty Associates
2120 L St., NW, Suite 610
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 741-2204 - office
(202) 741-2653 - fax
Ms. Garibay,
For your information I forward a message that I sent to the General Counsel of the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) concerning the involvement of The George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates in a possible fraud on the SSA, a felony in violation of 42 USC 1011.
Gary Freedman
Washington, DC
202 362 7064
______________________________________
Ms. Garibay,
For your information I forward a message that I sent to the General Counsel of the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) concerning the involvement of The George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates in a possible fraud on the SSA, a felony in violation of 42 USC 1011.
Gary Freedman
Washington, DC
202 362 7064
______________________________________
David F. Black, Esq.
General Counsel
U.S. Social Security Administration
Dear Mr. Black:
This will apprise the U.S. Social Security Administration of evidence tending to show that my Social Security Disability claim (no. xxx xx xxxx) is fraudulent, a felony in violation of 42 USC 1011.
1. In late October 1991 Dennis M. Race, Esq. (202 887 4028), a management partner at the Washington, DC office of the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, my former employer, consulted a psychiatrist named Gertrude R. Ticho, MD (deceased) (then Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry) who advised him that my complaint of job harassment appeared to be the product of a psychiatric "disorder" that might be associated with a risk of violence, rendering me a direct threat in the workplace. Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights at 4, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, Sept. 1, 1998) ("the firm . . . learned [upon consulting a practicing psychiatrist] that [Mr. Freedman's] behavior was indicative of a disorder known as 'ideas of reference,' which is sometimes accompanied by violent behavior.'). Dr. Ticho did not assess me in person and thus her professional opinion was a violation of the American Psychiatric Association's (APA's) so-called Goldwater rule which prohibits a psychiatrist from offering a professional psychiatric opinion about an individual without benefit of a personal exam and without obtaining the individual's consent for the opinion. Dr. Ticho's psychiatric opinion, upon which the U.S. Social Security Administration relied in making its disability determination that I became disabled and not suitable for employment effective October 29, 1991 (the date of Akin Gump's job termination), lacked any medical reliability and was defamatory.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/12/social-security-administration-initial.html
2. In September 1992 I underwent a two-hour psychiatric assessment at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry. The assessing psychiatrist, Napoleon Cuenco, MD, diagnosed me with bipolar disorder. Earle W. Baughman, MD (703 836 9078), a supervising psychiatrist at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, DC, can verify that I do not suffer from bipolar disorder.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/11/psychiatric-assessment-george.html
3. In August 1993 Suzanne M. Pitts, MD (deceased) recommended that I take the anti-psychotic medication, Haldol for an unspecified psychotic disorder. There is some suggestion in handwritten notes prepared by Dr. Pitts that her medical recommendation was retaliatory, made in response to a complaint I had filed against her with the D.C. Board of Medicine.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/11/saving-best-for-last.html
4. In May 1994 I underwent comprehensive psychological testing at The George Washington University Medical Center performed by Yu-Ling Han under the supervision of William D. Fabian, Ph.D. The testing failed to disclose that I suffered from any psychiatric disorder of any kind and failed to disclose the presence of psychotic thought processes. I was not on any medication at the time of testing.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/10/psychological-test-results-gw-may-1994.html.
5. In February 1996 Dimitrios Georgopoulos, MD of The George Washington University Medical Center diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia, a psychotic mental illness. Earle W. Baughman, MD (703 836 9078), a supervising psychiatrist at St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, DC, can verify that I do not suffer from paranoid schizophrenia.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2011/11/where-is-evidence-of-schizophrenia.html
6. In March 1996 I was administered the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WISC) by Ramin Mojtabai, MD (under the supervision of Robert Jenkins, Ph.D.) at The George Washington University Medical Center Department of Psychiatry. I scored 6 errors, the lowest meaningful score. The WISC is a test of psychotic thinking. A low score is considered a rule out for psychotic mental illness. I was not on any medication at the time of testing
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/11/psychological-testing-wisconsin-card.html
7. Currently, The George Washington University Medical Center Medical Faculty Associates apparently has no interest in conducting an internal investigation of this matter or of making a criminal referral to federal authorities about this matter.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2013/08/gw-thinks-im-nuts-great.html
Gary Freedman
3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apartment 136
Washington, DC 20008
202 362 7064
Friday, August 16, 2013
GW Thinks I'm Nuts -- GREAT!! -- I Can Continue to Defraud the Social Security Administration!
Ms. Garabay,
Thank you for your message of 8/5/13. I will direct all future communications about this matter to you.
As far as what I expect from MFA is that you make a criminal referral to the Washington Field Office of the FBI about this matter.
601 4th Street NW
Washington, DC 20535
Phone: (202) 278-2000
Fax: (202) 278-2478
E-mail: washington.field@ic.fbi.gov
Assistant Director in Charge: Valerie Parlave.
Apparently, I used the GW MFA to make what appears to be a fraudulent claim for U.S. Social Security Disability benefits which I continue to receive. My Social Security No. is xxx xx xxxx. My actions appear to be a felony per 42 USC 1011. I would think that GW MFA would not want to be used to further an individual's fraud scheme against the U.S. Government totalling several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In the alternative, or additionally, I request that you report my apparent fraud to the U.S. Social Security Administration.
Thank your very much. Incidentally, I apologize for inconveniencing Dr. Catapano.
Gary Freedman
Washington, DC
202 362 7064
cc: FBI WFO
-----Original Message-----
Thank you for your message of 8/5/13. I will direct all future communications about this matter to you.
As far as what I expect from MFA is that you make a criminal referral to the Washington Field Office of the FBI about this matter.
601 4th Street NW
Washington, DC 20535
Phone: (202) 278-2000
Fax: (202) 278-2478
E-mail: washington.field@ic.fbi.gov
Assistant Director in Charge: Valerie Parlave.
Apparently, I used the GW MFA to make what appears to be a fraudulent claim for U.S. Social Security Disability benefits which I continue to receive. My Social Security No. is xxx xx xxxx. My actions appear to be a felony per 42 USC 1011. I would think that GW MFA would not want to be used to further an individual's fraud scheme against the U.S. Government totalling several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In the alternative, or additionally, I request that you report my apparent fraud to the U.S. Social Security Administration.
Thank your very much. Incidentally, I apologize for inconveniencing Dr. Catapano.
Gary Freedman
Washington, DC
202 362 7064
cc: FBI WFO
From: Deborah Garibay <dgaribay@mfa.gwu.edu>
To: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 9:24 am
Subject: Re: current status
Deborah B. Garibay, RN, JD, CPHRM
To: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 9:24 am
Subject: Re: current status
Mr. Freedman,
I am the Deputy General Counsel for Medical Faculty Associates
("MFA"). Dr. Catapano is our employee. She has notified me of your
frequent emails to her on this subject. I am requesting that you cease
your communications with her. You may address your issues to me.
That being said, I am unclear from your emails what you expect from
MFA? It seems as though you have done a thorough job of self reporting
your perceived crimes.
Thank you -
Deputy General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
GW Medical Faculty Associates
2120 L St., NW, Suite 610
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 741-2204 - office
(202) 741-2653 - fax
Dr. Catapano, it appears that I am continuing to commit a felony against the Government of the United States. Isn't racketeering grand?
Gary Freedman
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
To: darrell.valdez
Cc: USMS; USMS GENERAL COUNSEL; washington.field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>; oag <oag@oag.state.md.us>
Sent: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 1:52 pm
Subject: criminal fraud
From: Gary Freedman <garfreed@aim.com>
To: darrell.valdez
Cc: USMS; USMS GENERAL COUNSEL; washington.field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>; oag <oag@oag.state.md.us>
Sent: Fri, Aug 2, 2013 1:52 pm
Subject: criminal fraud
Darrell Valdez, Esq.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Valdez:
You will find my felony fraud certification for August 2013 at the following link. It appears that I am continuing to commit a felony against the government of the United States by defrauding the U.S. Social Security Administration of up to about $500,000 in public monies in violation of 42 USC 1011.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Valdez:
You will find my felony fraud certification for August 2013 at the following link. It appears that I am continuing to commit a felony against the government of the United States by defrauding the U.S. Social Security Administration of up to about $500,000 in public monies in violation of 42 USC 1011.
There is substantial evidence that I do
not now nor have I ever suffered from an illness that would disqualify
me from employment. I respect the determination of the Government of
the District of Columbia, however, that as of October 1991 I suffered
from a psychiatric disorder (consistent with schizophrenia) that
rendered me a direct threat in the workplace, disqualifying me from the
protections of The Americans With Disabilities Act -- an illness that,
according to DC Government criteria, continues to the present.
https://www.change.org/petitions/to-the-director-of-the-federal-bureau-of-investigation-please-institute-a-criminal-investigation
I am available to assist the U.S. Department of Justice in any investigation of this matter.
Gary Freedman
Washington, DC
https://www.change.org/petitions/to-the-director-of-the-federal-bureau-of-investigation-please-institute-a-criminal-investigation
I am available to assist the U.S. Department of Justice in any investigation of this matter.
Gary Freedman
Washington, DC
Thursday, August 01, 2013
George Washington University -- Psychological Testing -- Manifest Deficiencies
In May 1994 I underwent a comprehensive battery of psychological tests at The George Washington University Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. The test evaluator prepared an eight-page report summarizing the results of the tests.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/10/psychological-test-results-gw-may-1994.html
The superficiality of the GW test report is betrayed by a review of the specificity and detail that is disclosed by the Minnnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory:
http://www.mmpi-info.com/mmpi-2/mmpidict2.html
The test evaluator stated that she scored the Rorschach Test according to the Exner scale. The following is a description of the Exner Scoring System, detailing its precision and subtlety. The GW test report lacks any of the precision that would be expected to be disclosed by an Exner analysis:
The Exner scoring system, also known as the Rorschach Comprehensive System (RCS), is the standard method for interpreting the Rorschach test. It was developed in the 1960s by Dr. John E. Exner, as a more rigorous system of analysis. It has been extensively validated and shows high inter-rater reliability. In 1969, Exner published The Rorschach Systems, a concise description of what would be later called "the Exner system". He later published a study in multiple volumes called The Rorschach: A Comprehensive system, the most accepted full description of his system.
Creation of the new system was prompted by the realization that at least five related, but ultimately different methods were in common use at the time, with a sizeable minority of examiners not employing any recognized method at all, basing instead their judgment on subjective assessment, or arbitrarily mixing characteristics of the various standardized systems.
The key components of the Exner system are the clusterization of Rorschach variables and a sequential search strategy to determine the order in which to analyze them framed in the context of standardized administration, objective, reliable coding and a representative normative database. The system places a lot of emphasis on a cognitive triad of information processing, related to how the subject processes input data, cognitive mediation, referring to the way information is transformed and identified, and ideation.
In the system, responses are scored with reference to their level of vagueness or synthesis of multiple images in the blot, the location of the response, which of a variety of determinants is used to produce the response (i.e., what makes the inkblot look like what it is said to resemble), the form quality of the response (to what extent a response is faithful to how the actual inkblot looks), the contents of the response (what the respondent actually sees in the blot), the degree of mental organizing activity that is involved in producing the response, and any illogical, incongruous, or incoherent aspects of responses. It has been reported that popular responses on the first card include bat, badge and coat of arms.
Using the scores for these categories, the examiner then performs a series of calculations producing a structural summary of the test data. The results of the structural summary are interpreted using existing research data on personality characteristics that have been demonstrated to be associated with different kinds of responses.
With the Rorschach plates (the ten inkblots), the area of each blot which is distinguished by the client is noted and coded – typically as "commonly selected" or "uncommonly selected". There were many different methods for coding the areas of the blots. Exner settled upon the area coding system promoted by S. J. Beck (1944 and 1961). This system was in turn based upon Klopfer's (1942) work.
As pertains to response form, a concept of "form quality" was present from the earliest of Rorschach's works, as a subjective judgment of how well the form of the subject's response matched the inkblots (Rorschach would give a higher form score to more "original" yet good form responses), and this concept was followed by other methods, especially in Europe; in contrast, the Exner system solely defines "good form" as a matter of word occurrence frequency, reducing it to a measure of the subject's distance to the population average.
http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2009/10/psychological-test-results-gw-may-1994.html
The superficiality of the GW test report is betrayed by a review of the specificity and detail that is disclosed by the Minnnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory:
http://www.mmpi-info.com/mmpi-2/mmpidict2.html
The test evaluator stated that she scored the Rorschach Test according to the Exner scale. The following is a description of the Exner Scoring System, detailing its precision and subtlety. The GW test report lacks any of the precision that would be expected to be disclosed by an Exner analysis:
The Exner scoring system, also known as the Rorschach Comprehensive System (RCS), is the standard method for interpreting the Rorschach test. It was developed in the 1960s by Dr. John E. Exner, as a more rigorous system of analysis. It has been extensively validated and shows high inter-rater reliability. In 1969, Exner published The Rorschach Systems, a concise description of what would be later called "the Exner system". He later published a study in multiple volumes called The Rorschach: A Comprehensive system, the most accepted full description of his system.
Creation of the new system was prompted by the realization that at least five related, but ultimately different methods were in common use at the time, with a sizeable minority of examiners not employing any recognized method at all, basing instead their judgment on subjective assessment, or arbitrarily mixing characteristics of the various standardized systems.
The key components of the Exner system are the clusterization of Rorschach variables and a sequential search strategy to determine the order in which to analyze them framed in the context of standardized administration, objective, reliable coding and a representative normative database. The system places a lot of emphasis on a cognitive triad of information processing, related to how the subject processes input data, cognitive mediation, referring to the way information is transformed and identified, and ideation.
In the system, responses are scored with reference to their level of vagueness or synthesis of multiple images in the blot, the location of the response, which of a variety of determinants is used to produce the response (i.e., what makes the inkblot look like what it is said to resemble), the form quality of the response (to what extent a response is faithful to how the actual inkblot looks), the contents of the response (what the respondent actually sees in the blot), the degree of mental organizing activity that is involved in producing the response, and any illogical, incongruous, or incoherent aspects of responses. It has been reported that popular responses on the first card include bat, badge and coat of arms.
Using the scores for these categories, the examiner then performs a series of calculations producing a structural summary of the test data. The results of the structural summary are interpreted using existing research data on personality characteristics that have been demonstrated to be associated with different kinds of responses.
With the Rorschach plates (the ten inkblots), the area of each blot which is distinguished by the client is noted and coded – typically as "commonly selected" or "uncommonly selected". There were many different methods for coding the areas of the blots. Exner settled upon the area coding system promoted by S. J. Beck (1944 and 1961). This system was in turn based upon Klopfer's (1942) work.
As pertains to response form, a concept of "form quality" was present from the earliest of Rorschach's works, as a subjective judgment of how well the form of the subject's response matched the inkblots (Rorschach would give a higher form score to more "original" yet good form responses), and this concept was followed by other methods, especially in Europe; in contrast, the Exner system solely defines "good form" as a matter of word occurrence frequency, reducing it to a measure of the subject's distance to the population average.