{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023792862141357594, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006997900629811056, 'mean_word_length': 6.079207920792079, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Not Your Same Old Story: New Rules for Thematic Apperceptive Techniques (TATs)

ABSTRACT Stories told about pictures have been used for both research and clinical practice since the beginning of modern personality assessment. However, with the growing science–practice gap, these thematic apperceptive techniques (TATs) have been used differently in those 2 venues. Scientific validation is presumptively general, but clinical application is idiographic and situation-specific. A bridge is needed. The manualized human-scored narrative analysis systems discussed here are valuable scientist-practitioner tools, but they require a validation literature to support further research publication, maintain their role in clinical training, and justify clinicians' reimbursement by third-party payers. To facilitate wider understanding of manualized TAT methodologies, this article addresses long-standing criticisms of TAT reliability and proposes some strategic solutions to the measurement error problem for both researchers and clinicians, including analyzing person–situation interactions, purposeful situation sampling for within-storyteller comparisons, and uses of small samples. The new rules for TATs include conceptual and methodological standards that researchers should aim to meet and report, reviewers should apply to manuscripts, and clinical assessors can use to analyze their own data and justify third-party payment.