Lundy A
Psychology Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11550, USA.
J Pers Assess. 1985 Apr;49(2):141-5. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4902_6.
Controversy over the TAT's reliability may stem largely from the mis-application of traditional psychometric measures, which are inappropriate to this test. The TAT is implicitly based on a multiple regression model, for which coefficient alpha is not appropriate. Also, test-retest correlations may be adversely affected by the standard instructions to write a "creative" story. In a test-retest study, 47 high school students retook the TAT after a year with instructions designed to break the implicit set to produce a new and different story from that previously written. The test-retest correlations were r = .48 (need for affiliation) and .56 (need for intimacy), or approximately the same as those for, e.g., the MMPI, 16PF, and CPI, It was demonstrated that this high stability over time was not due to subjects' recalling and repeating previous responses. Finally, it was shown that alpha considerably underestimated the test-retest reliability, contrary to assumptions of classical psychometrics.
关于主题统觉测验（TAT）可靠性的争议可能主要源于传统心理测量方法的错误应用，而这些方法并不适用于该测验。TAT隐含地基于多元回归模型，对此系数阿尔法并不适用。此外，重测信度可能会受到要求写出“有创意”故事的标准指导语的不利影响。在一项重测研究中，47名高中生在一年后重新进行了TAT测试，此次测试的指导语旨在打破隐含的定式，以便创作出与之前所写不同的新故事。重测信度分别为r = .48（亲和需求）和.56（亲密需求），与例如明尼苏达多项人格调查表（MMPI）、卡特尔16种人格因素问卷（16PF）和加州心理调查表（CPI）的重测信度大致相同。结果表明，这种随时间的高稳定性并非由于受试者回忆并重复之前的回答。最后，结果显示阿尔法系数大大低估了重测信度，这与经典心理测量学的假设相反。
