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
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: ehh
DbLabel: Education Research Complete
An: 191522338
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: 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).
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sinclair%2C+Samuel+Justin%22">Sinclair, Samuel Justin</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> drjustinsinclair@gmail.com</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Haggerty%2C+Greg%22">Haggerty, Greg</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cowie%2C+Kiefer+D%2E%22">Cowie, Kiefer D.</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shea%2C+Kelly+E%2E%22">Shea, Kelly E.</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shea%2C+Kris+L%2E%22">Shea, Kris L.</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Psychological+Assessment%22">Psychological Assessment</searchLink>. Mar2026, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p253-265. 13p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+%26+languages%22">Language & languages</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+methodology+evaluation%22">Research methodology evaluation</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Benchmarking+%28Management%29%22">Benchmarking (Management)</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Culture%22">Culture</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+tests%22">Psychological tests</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cognition%22">Cognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Projective+techniques%22">Projective techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Clinical+medicine+research%22">Clinical medicine research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+evaluation%22">Research evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+perception%22">Social perception</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychoanalytic+theory%22">Psychoanalytic theory</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>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.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=191522338
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1037/pas0001451
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 253
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Language & languages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research methodology evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Benchmarking (Management)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Culture
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Projective techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Clinical medicine research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social perception
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychoanalytic theory
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: 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).
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sinclair, Samuel Justin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Haggerty, Greg
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cowie, Kiefer D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shea, Kelly E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shea, Kris L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Text: Mar2026
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 10403590
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychological Assessment
              Type: main
ResultId 1