User talk:104.163.171.108

Quote Mining run wild in the 'validity' section.
Re: Jenkins, "A Handbook of Clinical Scoring Systems for Thematic Apperceptive Tests": The section quoted in the 'validity' section of this entry seems like a drive-by quote from a contributor who hasn't read the following sentence. This reeks of mining in order to erroneously discredit an entire standard. This framing is false on its face, because this entire text's premise is the scoring systems that correspond well with the TAT, and how best to employ them. This text is still widely circulated and in use and hasn't experienced any kind of deterioration in terms of peer esteem. Conversely you have this 1975 citation from R. Wildman which lacks rigor at all levels of consideration: The study is of an unrepresentative sample of six clinical psychologists from the same facility being given Patient and Student Nurse files and being asked to categorize them on the basis of their scoring. Never mind that the TAT-MMPI sets outperformed the Bender-Gestalt-HTP sets by a margin of 27%, again it seems the contributor did not do any actual research prior to injecting their perspectives).

The original, complete quote from the introduction of Jenkins' text:

"Finally, although flexibility, efficiency, generalizability, and consistency are helpful in both clinical and research work, structured scoring systems allow for the objectivity that is the sine qua non of science in our field. This objectivity is exemplified first by the attainment of interscorer reliability between different observers applying the same scoring rules. Only individual scoring systems, not “the TAT,” can be evaluated for validity and reliability, making scientific evaluation of TAT data possible."

Without this context, the contributor goes on to mine the following line and present it as representative:

"The phrase validity of the TAT is meaningless, because validity is specific not to the pictures, but to the set of scores derived from the population, purpose, and circumstances involved in any given data collection, as discussed in this chapter. Furthermore, for TATs validity is specific to the method of obtaining scores from stories."

Which of course selectively omits:

"(Curiously,it is conventional to call objective the structured self-report items commonly used in social and personality psychology to elicit respondents’ subjective perceptions and attitudes toward themselves and the world. The content of these items is certainly not objective in any meaningful way, as the experiences reported cannot be independently verified apart from the respondents’ introspection.)"

It seems that this contributor has some sort of agenda against established means of inquiry, and should perhaps stick to their own lane of expertise.