Volume 19, Issue 2 (12-2024)                   bjcp 2024, 19(2): 114-128 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

A Systematic Review on the Validation of the Thematic Apperception Test with the Scoring of the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale: Global Scoring Method
Sajjad Alahdadi1 , Asghar Minaei *2 , Mohammad reza Falsafinejad3 , Mohammad kazem Atef Vahid4
1- Ph.D. Student in Assessment and Measurement, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
2- Associate Professor, Department of Assessment and Measurement, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran , asghar.minaei@yahoo.com
3- Associate Professor, Department of Assessment and Measurement, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
4- Associate Professor, Department of Clinical Psychology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (373 Views)
Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale- Global scoring method (SCORS-G) has been introduced since 1995 by Westen and widely used; But it is not known in the society of Iranian psychologists. The aim of this study is a systematic review of Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) validation with the scoring of SCORS-G. By referring to Web ScienceDirect, PubMed, OfScience, ProQuest, Scopus, Emerald, DOAJ, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, Academia, and ResearchGate databases, as well as Persian language databases such as NoorMags and Magiran and also SCORS-G publication site and using the keywords thematic apperception test, TAT, SCORS, Validation, Psychometric Properties, Validity and Reliability were searched for related sources. Finally, 384 primary sources were included in the study. Following the initial screening, 52 sources were identified as fully relevant. These sources were then thoroughly reviewed, and the PRISMA guidelines were applied to ensure quality assessment and enhance the rigor of the study. The findings revealed that 46 research (90 percent of existing research) conducted using the criterion validity method, and 5 research (71 percent of existing research) conducted using the convergent validity method confirmed the validity of the instrument. The validity using the factor structure method also showed that in all 6 studies, two or three factor models fit with data. The results of the research related to reliability also showed that 46 of the studies (98 percent of existing research) conducted by the method of agreement between evaluators confirmed the reliability of the tool. Also, 7 cases (78 percent of existing researche) reported adequate reliability by internal consistency method, and finally, only the test-retest research reported acceptable correlations to confirm reliability. Therefore, TAT with SCORS-G scoring method has good validity and reliability and its use is recommended for Iranian specialists.
Article number: 9
Keywords: Systematic Review, Thematic Apperception Test, SCORS-G, Validation, Validity, Reliability
Full-Text [PDF 466 kb]   (5 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2024/10/27 | Revised: 2026/05/8 | Accepted: 2025/12/31 | ePublished ahead of print: 2026/01/5 | Published: 2025/12/31
References
1. Abbate, L., Laghi, F., Pace, C. S., & Di Luca, I. (2012). Divorced and married couples' object relations: A pilot-study with the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale (SCORS). Italian Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 369-384. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288454067
2. Ackerman, S. J., Hilsenroth, M. J., Clemence, A. J., Weatherill, R., & Fowler, J. C. (2000). The effects of social cognition and object representation on psychotherapy continuation. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 64(3), 386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7303_9 [DOI:10.1207/S15327752JPA7303_9] [PMID]
3. Ackerman, S. J., Hilsenroth, M. J., Clemence, A. J., Weatherill, R., & Fowler, J. C. (2001). Convergent validity of Rorschach and TAT scales of object relations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(2), 295-306. [DOI:10.1207/S15327752JPA7702_11] [PMID]
4. Adams, B. E., Porcerelli, J. H., Abell, S., & Huprich, S. K. (2021). Malevolent object relations: A multimethod study of female survivors of childhood abuse. Personality and Mental Health, 15(4), 252-260. [DOI:10.1002/pmh.1512] [PMID]
5. Andrew, G., Walton, R. E., Hartwell, S. W., & Hutt, M. L. (1951). The Michigan Picture Test: the stimulus values of the cards. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 15(1), 51. [DOI:10.1037/h0055549] [PMID]
6. Auletta, A. F., Cupellaro, S., Abbate, L., Aiello, E., Cornacchia, P., Norcia, C., & Sogos, C. (2020). SCORS-G and card pull effect of TAT stories: a study with a nonclinical sample of children. Assessment, 27(6), 1368-1377. [DOI:10.1177/1073191118781014] [PMID]
7. Bahrami, H. (2021). Psychological tests (theoretical basics and practical techniques). 17th edition, Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University Press. [In Persian]
8. Bedi, R., Muller, R. T., & Thornback, K. (2013). Object relations and psychopathology among adult survivors of childhood abuse. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5(3), 233. DOI: 10.1037/a0027705 [DOI:10.1037/a0027705]
9. Bellak, L., & Bellak, S. S. (1950). An introductory note on the Children's Apperception Test (CAT). Journal of projective techniques, 14(2), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853126.1950.10380333 [DOI:10.1080/08853126.1950.10380319] [PMID]
10. Bouvet, C. (2010). Présentation de la Social cognition and object relation scale (SCORS-Échelles de cognition sociale et de relation d'objet) pour coter les récits TAT. Intérêts, limites et illustrations pour la clinique et la recherche empirique. Bulletin de psychologie (4), 263-277. [DOI:10.3917/bupsy.508.0263]
11. Bouvet, C., & Cleach, C. (2010). Early dropout patients in psychiatric psychosocial rehabilitation treatment and their bindings with relational skills, object relation and intensity of psychopathology. L'encephale, 37, S19-26. [DOI:10.1016/j.encep.2010.03.008] [PMID]
12. Bouvet, C., Prime, C., Camart, N., Fouques, D., & Zebdi, R. (2020). Discriminant Validity (Clinical Vs Non Clinical) of the French Version of the Social Cognition and Object Relation Scale, French Version, for TAT Narratives. Quebec Review of Psychology, 41(1), 45. [DOI:10.7202/1070662ar]
13. Bram, A. D. (2014). Object relations, interpersonal functioning, and health in a nonclinical sample: Construct validation and norms for the TAT SCORS-G. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 31(3), 314. [DOI:10.1037/a0036286]
14. Cogan, R., Porcerelli, J. H., & Dromgoole, K. (2001). Psychodynamics of partner, stranger, and generally violent male college students. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 18(3), 515. [DOI:10.1037/0736-9735.18.3.515]
15. Coleman, S. G., Ravula, H. P., Stein, M. B., Coleman, J. J., Wilcox, M. M., & Slavin-Mulford, J. M. (2024). The Impact of Different Thematic Apperception Test Administration Methods on Narrative Length and Story Richness as Measured by the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale-Global Rating Method (SCORS-G). Journal of Personality Assessment, 106(4), 469-481. DOI:10.1080/00223891.2023.2286459 [DOI:10.1080/00223891.2023.2286459] [PMID]
16. Comrey, A. L. (1983). Book Review: Personality Assessment Richard I. Lanyon and Leonard D. Goodstein New York NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1982, 311 pp., $23.95. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7(2), 246-248. DOI:10.1177/014662168300700214 [DOI:10.1177/014662168300700214]
17. Conway, F., Lyon, S., & McCarthy, J. (2014). Object relations of hospitalized adolescents engaged in nonsuicidal self-injurious behaviors. Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 13(2), 108-119. DOI:10.1080/15289168.2014.905336 [DOI:10.1080/15289168.2014.905336]
18. Costantino, G., Litman, L., Waxman, R., Dupertuis, D., Pais, E., Rosenzweig, C., . . . Canales, M. M. (2014). Tell-Me-A-Story (TEMAS) assessment for culturally diverse children and adolescents. Rorschachiana. DOI:10.1027/1192-5604/a000054 [DOI:10.1027/1192-5604/a000054]
19. Cramer, P., & Cramer, P. (1991). The defense mechanism manual: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4613-9025-1_12]
20. Eurelings-Bontekoe, E., Zwinkels, K., Schaap-Jonker, H., & Edrisi, M. (2011). Formal characteristics of Thematic Apperception Test narratives of adult patients with an autism spectrum disorder. A preliminary study. Psychology, 2(07), 687. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.2710 [DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.27105]
21. Eurelings-Bontekoe, E. H., Luyten, P., & Snellen, W. (2009). Validation of a theory-driven profile interpretation of the Dutch short form of the MMPI using the TAT Social Cognitions and Object Relations Scale (SCORS). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 155-165. DOI:10.1080/00223890802634274 [DOI:10.1080/00223890802634274] [PMID]
22. Fowler, J. C., Ackerman, S. J., Speanburg, S., Bailey, A., Blagys, M., & Conklin, A. C. (2004). Personality and symptom change in treatment-refractory inpatients: Evaluation of the phase model of change using Rorschach, TAT, and DSM-IV Axis V. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(3), 306-322. DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa8303_12 [DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa8303_12] [PMID]
23. Gagnon, J., & Daelman, S. (2011). An empirical study of the psychodynamics of borderline impulsivity: A preliminary report. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 28(3), 341. DOI: 10.1037/a0024358 [DOI:10.1037/a0024358]
24. Gagnon, J., Leblanc, J.-S., & St-Amand, J. (2015). Relationship between two dimensions of object relations and group psychotherapy attendance rate in borderline personality disorder individuals. Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy, 5(2), 1. DOI: 10.4172/2161-0487.1000171 [DOI:10.4172/2161-0487.1000171]
25. Handelzalts, J. E., Fisher, S., & Naot, R. (2014). Object relations and real life relationships: A cross method assessment. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 55(2), 160-167. DOI:10.1111/sjop.12102 [DOI:10.1111/sjop.12102] [PMID]
26. Handelzalts, J. E., Fisher, S., Sadan, O., & Goldzweig, G. (2017). Object relations, unconscious defences and fear of childbirth, as reflected in maternal-request caesarean section. Journal of reproductive and infant psychology, 35(1), 91-102. DOI:10.1080/02646838.2016.1253832 [DOI:10.1080/02646838.2016.1253832] [PMID]
27. Hibbard, S., Mitchell, D., & Porcerelli, J. (2001). Internal consistency of the object relations and social cognition scales for the Thematic Apperception Test. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77(3), 408-419. DOI:10.1207/S15327752JPA7703_03 [DOI:10.1207/S15327752JPA7703_03] [PMID]
28. Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2022). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.4). Cochrane.
29. Huan, T. J., Min, L. J., & Sun, J. M. (2021). Assessing Levels of Personality Organization Using the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale in Nonclinical Samples. The Korean Journal of Health Psychology, 26(6), 1101-11. DOI:10.17315/kjhp.2021.26.6.008
30. Inslegers, R., Vanheule, S., Meganck, R., Debaere, V., Trenson, E., & Desmet, M. (2012). Interpersonal problems and cognitive characteristics of interpersonal representations in alexithymia: a study using a self-report and interview-based measure of alexithymia. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 200(7), 607-613. DOI: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e31825bfad9 [DOI:10.1097/NMD.0b013e31825bfad9] [PMID]
31. Joy, S. P. (2020). Why Teach Future Psychotherapists to Administer and Interpret Projective Tests? Well, why teach future physicians and surgeons to perform dissections? SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 27 (1).
32. lee, J., Lim, J., & Chang, M. (2018). Validating the Korean version of the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale using the Thematic Apperception Test. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37(4), 540-557. [DOI:10.15842/kjcp.2018.37.4.007]
33. Lewis, K. C., Meehan, K. B., Cain, N. M., Wong, P. S., Clemence, A. J., Stevens, J., & Tillman, J. G. (2016). Impairments in object relations and chronicity of suicidal behavior in individuals with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(1), 19-34. DOI:10.1521/pedi_2015_29_178 [DOI:10.1521/pedi_2015_29_178] [PMID]
34. Lewis, K. C., Ridenour, J. M., Pitman, S., & Roche, M. (2021). Evaluating stable and situational expressions of passive-aggressive personality disorder: A multimethod experience sampling case study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103(4), 558-570. DOI:10.1080/00223891.2020.1818572 [DOI:10.1080/00223891.2020.1818572] [PMID]
35. Lim, M., & Chang, H. (2018). Social Cognition Deficit of Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder Tendencies. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37(3) , 276-288. [DOI:10.15842/kjcp.2018.37.3.002]
36. Maher, H., Sumathi, D., & Winston, C. N. (2015). Object of desire or object of distress? Psychosocial functioning among securely and insecurely attached Indian young adults. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 32(3), 432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038169 [DOI:10.1037/a0038169]
37. Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. (1935). A method for investigating fantasies: The Thematic Apperception Test. Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry, 34(2), 289-306. DOI:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1935.02250200049005 [DOI:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1935.02250200049005]
38. Narron, M. (2005). Updating the TAT: a photographic revision of the Thematic Apperception Test: Alliant International University, San Francisco Bay.
39. Nesrin, K. (2019). predictive power of tat social cognition and object relations scale global (scors-g) to dsm-iv and icd-10 assessment of personality disorder. Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Turkey.
40. Niec, L. N., & Russ, S. W. (2002). Children's internal representations, empathy and fantasy play: A validity study of the SCORS-Q. Psychological Assessment, 14(3), 331. DOI:10.1037/1040-3590.14.3.331 [DOI:10.1037/1040-3590.14.3.331] [PMID]
41. Nissley, G. E., & DeFreese, E. (2020). Thematic Apperception Test. The Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences: Measurement and Assessment, 381-385. DOI:10.1002/9781118970843.ch133 [DOI:10.1002/9781118970843.ch133]
42. Ornduff, S. R., Freedenfeld, R. N., Kelsey, R. M., & Critelli, J. W. (1994). Object relations of sexually abused female subjects: A TAT analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(2), 223-238. DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa6302_3 [DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa6302_3] [PMID]
43. Ornduff, S. R., & Kelsey, R. M. (1996). Object relations of sexually and physically abused female children: a TAT analysis .National Library of Medicine, 66(1), 91-105. DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_7 [DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_7] [PMID]
44. Porcerelli, J. H., Shahar, G., Blatt, S., Ford, R. Q., Mezza, J. A., & Greenlee, L. M. (2006). Social cognition and object relations scale: Convergent validity and changes following intensive inpatient treatment. Personality and Individual Differences 41(3), 407-417. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.027 [DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.027]
45. Richardson, L. A., Porcerelli, J. H., Dauphin, V. B., Morris, P., & Murdoch, W. (2018). The use of the social cognition and object relations scale in a primary care setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(2), 156-165. DOI:10.1080/00223891.2017.1369984 [DOI:10.1080/00223891.2017.1369984] [PMID]
46. Ridenour, J. M., Lewis, K. C., Poston, J. M., & Ciecalone, D. N. (2019). Performance-based assessment of social cognition in borderline versus psychotic psychopathology. Rorschachiana. DOI:10.1027/1192-5604/a000114 [DOI:10.1027/1192-5604/a000114]
47. Ridenour, J. M., Lewis, K. C., Siefert, C. J., Pitman, S. R., Knauss, D., & Stein, M. B. (2021). Card pull effects of the Thematic Apperception Test using the Social Cognition and Object Relations‐Global Rating Method on complex psychiatric sample. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 28(5), 1079-1090. DOI:10.1002/cpp.2554 [DOI:10.1002/cpp.2554] [PMID]
48. Ridenour, J. M., Lewis, K. C., Siefert, C. J., & Stein, M. B. (2022). Longitudinal stability of social cognition and object relations scale-global rating method dimensional ratings, score ranges and narrative 'blandness' in a clinical sample. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 29(4), 1447-1456. DOI:10.1002/cpp.2729 [DOI:10.1002/cpp.2729] [PMID]
49. Ruchensky, J. R., Dowgwillo, E. A., Kelley, S. E., Massey, C., Slavin-Mulford, J., Richardson, L. A., . . . Stein, M. B. (2022). Exploring the alternative model for personality disorders using SCORS-G ratings on thematic apperception test narratives. Journal of Personality Disorders, 36(2), 201-216. DOI:10.1521/pedi_2021_35_535 [DOI:10.1521/pedi_2021_35_535] [PMID]
50. Scaduto, A. A., Barbieri, V., & Santos, M. A. d. (2020). Validity of the TAT in Brazil: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Psicologia Teoria e Pesquisa, 36(3). DOI:10.1590/0102.3772e36521 [DOI:10.1590/0102.3772e36521]
51. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 [DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420] [PMID]
52. Siefert, C. J., Stein, M., Slavin-Mulford, J., Haggerty, G., Sinclair, S. J., Funke, D., & Blais, M. A. (2018). Exploring the factor structure of the Social Cognition and Object Relations-Global Rating Method: Support for two-and three-factor models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(2), 122-134. DOI:10.1080/00223891.2017.1336716 [DOI:10.1080/00223891.2017.1336716] [PMID]
53. Siefert, C. J., Stein, M. B., Slavin-Mulford, J., Sinclair, S. J., Haggerty, G., & Blais, M. A. (2016). Estimating the effects of Thematic Apperception Test card content on SCORS-G ratings: Replication with a nonclinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(6), 598-607. DOI:10.1080/00223891.2016.1167696 [DOI:10.1080/00223891.2016.1167696] [PMID]
54. Sinclair, S. J., Carpenter, K. E., Cowie, K. D., AhnAllen, C. G., & Haggerty, G. (2023). A critical review of the Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale-Global and Thematic Apperception Test in clinical practice and research: Psychometric limitations and ethical implications. Psychological Assessment, 35(9), 778. [DOI:10.1037/pas0001263] [PMID]
55. Stedman, J. M., Essery, J., & McGeary, C. A. (2018). Projective personality assessment: Evidence for a decline in training emphasis. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health, 25(1), 54-59.
56. Stein, M., & Slavin-Mulford, J. (2017). The Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale-Global rating method (SCORS-G): A comprehensive guide for clinicians and researchers: Routledge. DOI:10.4324/9781315207629 [DOI:10.4324/9781315207629]
57. Stein, M., Slavin-Mulford, J., Siefert, C., & Sinclair, S. J. (2015). External Validity of SCORS-G Ratings of Thematic Apperception Test Narratives in a Sample of Outpatients and Inpatients. Rorschachiana Journal of the International Society for the Rorschach, 36(1), 58-81. DOI:10.1027/1192-5604/a000057 [DOI:10.1027/1192-5604/a000057]
58. Stein, M. B., Slavin-Mulford, J., Siefert, C. J., Sinclair, S. J., Renna, M., Malone, J., . . . Blais, M. A. (2014). SCORS-G stimulus characteristics of select Thematic Apperception Test cards. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(3), 339-349. DOI:10.1080/00223891.2013.823440 [DOI:10.1080/00223891.2013.823440] [PMID]
59. Stein, M. B., Slavin-Mulford, J., Sinclair, S. J., Siefert, C. J., & Blais, M. A. (2012). Exploring the construct validity of the social cognition and object relations scale in a clinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(5), 533-540. DOI:10.1080/00223891.2012.668594 [DOI:10.1080/00223891.2012.668594] [PMID]
60. Táborská, L. (2013). SCORS scale-evaluation of social information processing and object relations in men with pathological sexual aggression. Univerzita Karlova, Czech.
61. Van Lennep, D. J. (1948). Four Picture Test (1930).
62. Vantuch, J. (2014). Non-cognitive effect of cognitive rehabilitation: TAT administration to patients with acute brain damage. Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, Czech.
63. Vaughn, K. N., Jenkins, S. R., & Weber, K. M. (2021). Object relations assessment predicts outpatients' attrition, early working alliance and psychotherapy process. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 28(4), 978-987. DOI:10.1002/cpp.2552 [DOI:10.1002/cpp.2552] [PMID]
64. Westen, D., Lohr, N., Silk, K. R., Gold, L., & Kerber, K. (1990). Object relations and social cognition in borderlines, major depressives, and normals: A Thematic Apperception Test analysis. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2(4), 355. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5601_6 [DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa5601_6] [PMID]
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.