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).

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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).