Moston, Stephen, and Engelberg, Terry (2015) Science 1, Religion 5: a reply to Petróczi et al. (2015) 'A call for policy guidance on psychometric testing in doping control in sport'. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26 (11). pp. 1140-1141.

Preview	PDF (Accepted Version) - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (101kB) | Preview
	PDF (Published Version) - Published Version Restricted to Repository staff only

 

3

935

Abstract

[Extract] The article by Petróczi et al. (2015) sets out a call for policy guidance on the misuse of psychometric testing in doping 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.

Actions (Repository Staff Only)

Item Control Page