View in EDS

Proclaiming a Psychological Assessment Tool Is "Reliable, Valid, and Ethical" Doth Not Make It So: A Reply to Stein et al. (2026) and Jenkins (2026).

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Proclaiming a Psychological Assessment Tool Is "Reliable, Valid, and Ethical" Doth Not Make It So: A Reply to Stein et al. (2026) and Jenkins (2026).
Authors: Sinclair, Samuel Justin1 (AUTHOR) drjustinsinclair@gmail.com, Haggerty, Greg2 (AUTHOR), Cowie, Kiefer D.3 (AUTHOR), Shea, Kelly E.4 (AUTHOR), Shea, Kris L.5 (AUTHOR)
Source: Psychological Assessment. Mar2026, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p253-265. 13p.
Subject Terms: *Language & languages, *Research methodology evaluation, *Benchmarking (Management), *Culture, *Psychological tests, *Cognition, Projective techniques, Clinical medicine research, Research evaluation, Social perception, Ethics, Psychometrics, Psychoanalytic theory
Abstract: We thank Stein et al. (2026) and Jenkins (2026) for their commentaries on our critical review of the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale–Global system as applied to the Thematic Apperception Test (Sinclair et al., 2023) and appreciate the opportunity to respond in kind. Although we acknowledge the considerable effort put into these response articles (analytically and conceptually), both fall short in addressing the myriad serious methodological and procedural concerns we raised in 2023 and do little to move the needle in support of this assessment technique. This article will review the many ways these responses misinterpret and misrepresent our original review and the voluminous methodological problems with the "meta-analyses" that are presented by Stein et al.—and the various ways they are statistically confounded, confusing, and scientifically unsound. Further, this article will highlight the considerable number of logical inconsistencies that are inherent within Stein et al.'s core arguments, as well as the numerous contradictions between Stein et al. and Jenkins—all of which seriously undermine the methodology itself. Given the many ethical ambiguities that arise as a result, we conclude with a repeat calling for a moratorium on this methodology until these issues are sufficiently resolved. Public Significance Statement: The current article responds directly to several commentaries on our 2023 article, which critically reviewed the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale–Global system as applied to the Thematic Apperception Test in clinical practice and research contexts. Given the myriad methodological confounds and logical inconsistencies inherent within these commentaries (both within and between response articles), a moratorium on this methodology remains warranted until these issues are sufficiently addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Psychological Assessment is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:We thank Stein et al. (2026) and Jenkins (2026) for their commentaries on our critical review of the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale–Global system as applied to the Thematic Apperception Test (Sinclair et al., 2023) and appreciate the opportunity to respond in kind. Although we acknowledge the considerable effort put into these response articles (analytically and conceptually), both fall short in addressing the myriad serious methodological and procedural concerns we raised in 2023 and do little to move the needle in support of this assessment technique. This article will review the many ways these responses misinterpret and misrepresent our original review and the voluminous methodological problems with the "meta-analyses" that are presented by Stein et al.—and the various ways they are statistically confounded, confusing, and scientifically unsound. Further, this article will highlight the considerable number of logical inconsistencies that are inherent within Stein et al.'s core arguments, as well as the numerous contradictions between Stein et al. and Jenkins—all of which seriously undermine the methodology itself. Given the many ethical ambiguities that arise as a result, we conclude with a repeat calling for a moratorium on this methodology until these issues are sufficiently resolved. Public Significance Statement: The current article responds directly to several commentaries on our 2023 article, which critically reviewed the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale–Global system as applied to the Thematic Apperception Test in clinical practice and research contexts. Given the myriad methodological confounds and logical inconsistencies inherent within these commentaries (both within and between response articles), a moratorium on this methodology remains warranted until these issues are sufficiently addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10403590
DOI:10.1037/pas0001451