Abstract
[Extract] The article by Petroczi et al. (2015) sets out a call for policy guidance on the misuse of psychometric testing in control. While well-intentioned, the article flounders on the question of whether the 'problem' actually exists. The article essentially charges that various - unspecified - forensic types, probably forensic psychologists, are misusing psychometric tests, trying to identify athletes who are guilty of doping. Given such a bold claim, it is curious that these forensic types are not identified in any discernible way. For example, the word 'forensic' appears 15 times in the text, but there is only one citation to an article published in a forensic science journal, an article which does not at any stage mention psychometrics or even psychology. As a point of comparison, there are five direct citations to articles in religious studies journals. In some ways this is symbolic of an article that asks us to take its claims (... there is a growing and thus worrying trend to employ forensic intelligence to doping p.10) on faith, not science.
Accepted Version (
Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
