Abstract：
The Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale-Global (SCORS-G) has been used increasingly in multimethod psychological assessment contexts as a framework for eliciting personality information from narrative data collection techniques, the most popular of which is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). Although research on the reliability and validity of the SCORS system has evolved over the last decade, there are numerous psychometric and procedural shortcomings (and corresponding ethical issues) that should be considered when applying this methodology to the TAT in clinical and research settings. Chief among these concerns is a lack of normative benchmarking, variability in TAT card batteries that are administered across contexts (which limit generalization and direct research comparisons), ambiguous reliability and validity evidence (and lack of incremental validity), and redundancy in published studies (i.e., versions of the same data/samples presented repeatedly across research). There is also a dearth of information about how SCORS-G data are influenced by factors such as culture, language, cognitive functioning, and other variables that may impact narrative output, word count, and richness (and subsequent interpretation and clinical decision making). The review concludes with a discussion of the ethical implications of using the SCORS-G in clinical practice, and recommendation for a moratorium on its use until minimum psychometric standards can be established and greater clarity is achieved surrounding its use with diverse and vulnerable populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
摘要：
社会认知和对象关系量表（SCORS-G）已越来越多地用于多方法心理评估环境中，作为从叙事数据收集技术中获取人格信息的框架，其中最受欢迎的是主题感知测试(TAT)。尽管对SCORS系统的信度和效度的研究在过去十年中不断发展，在临床和研究环境中将此方法应用于TAT时,应考虑许多心理测量和程序上的缺陷(以及相应的伦理问题).这些担忧中最主要的是缺乏规范的基准，跨环境管理的TAT卡电池的可变性(这限制了概括和直接研究比较)，模棱两可的信度和效度证据(以及缺乏增量效度)，和已发表研究中的冗余(即，在整个研究中重复呈现的相同数据/样本的版本)。关于SCORS-G数据如何受到文化等因素的影响，语言,认知功能，以及其他可能影响叙事输出的变量，单词计数,和丰富度(以及随后的解释和临床决策)。这篇综述最后讨论了在临床实践中使用SCORS-G的伦理含义。并建议暂停使用，直到可以建立最低心理测量标准，并在不同和脆弱人群中使用该标准之前更加明确。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023年APA，保留所有权利)。
