{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023686158401184307, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014063656550703183, 'mean_word_length': 5.531400966183575, '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}}
An analysis of Lilienfeld et al.'s (2015) problematic psychological terms.

The language psychologists and other mental health professionals utilize impacts the formation of public perceptions concerning the practice of psychology. Psychologists from Warren, Calkins, Dunlap, Gardiner, and Ruckmich to Lilienfeld et al. have raised concerns about the clarity and use of problematic psychological terms. This study measured 309 mental health professionals' (1) recognition and use of 50 psychological terms identified as problematic by Lilienfeld et al., and (2) explored the jangle fallacy by providing potentially synonymous word-pairs for participants to rate for synonymity. Results of Part I indicated that 34 out of the 50 terms were not recognized as problematic by a significant majority of participants. Participants disagreed about whether or not six terms were problematic, and the remaining 10 terms were rated by a majority to be problematic. Results of Part II indicated a disagreement between participants regarding the synonymity of four word-pairs, and agreement regarding the synonymity (or lack thereof) of the remaining 16 word-pairs. These findings support the suggestion by Lilienfeld and colleagues that greater attention is needed in regard to problematic psychological terminology, including synonymous or jangling terminology.