Talk:Parental alienation

Changes Must Be Supported By Reliable Sources

When editing this article it is important that references to mental health and psychology meet the WP:RSMED standard, and that for the sections that relate to the legal world, references meet the WP:RSLAW standard. Any new assertion introduced into the article should be verifiable, that is to say, supported by reliable sources.

This article was significantly updated in the not-so-distant past, and is supported by large numbers of recent references. But even if that were not the case, the fact that time has passed since an article has written does not stand as evidence of change. Often it is in fact a reflection of the fact that the matter is largely viewed as settled. If there is a change in the consensus view of mental health professionals, there should be reliable sources available that document the change.

Speculation and original research do not belong within an article, WP:NOT, nor should language be introduced to question properly sourced material based upon speculation that things may have changed. See MOS:WTW. Arllaw (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just because a statement is properly sourced doesn't mean it works well in the context of a Wikipedia article. I'm going to question the properly sourced introduction. In Wikipedia's definition of the word "theory", it explains that in the common vernacular, the word theory implies something is unproven or speculative. When the average person reads "Parental Alienation is a theorized process by which...." anything that follows is going to be dismissed as psychobabble. There may be disagreement on some elements of PA, but I think the scientific community agrees that it is a real thing that occurs in our society. Do we want the opening line to create so much doubt in the minds of people who are learning of it for the first time? This introduction may be properly sourced, but there are many alternative definitions that would work better. I invite the Scientific Community to chime in. Thudpuckers (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss proposed changes to the lead, it will be helpful if you would start a new topic for that purpose and share your proposed changes in that topic.

If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies about reliable sourcing, that's a policy discussion that is best directed at those who set policy. Arllaw (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Treatment section

I would like to address mrollie's revision of the last sentence of the treatment section. Rather than engaging in editing wars, let's have an honest discussion about the merits of mrollie's revision. I revised the sentence to say A recent program evaluation of a four-day intervention called "Turning Point for Families" found preliminary evidence that the "The Turning Points for Families program is an effective and safe treatment option for families in which severe parental alienation has occurred". It was changed to read A recent program evaluation of a four-day intervention called "Turning Point for Families" found preliminary evidence that the program could improve family relationships in situations where a court finds alienation. The reason mrollie gave for his revision is that my sentence was a little to "pro" parental alienation. Could you please address the following questions about your revision and the reason for it: 1) This is a direct quote from the study. The study does not qualify that the program "could improve family relationships", it states that it is "an effective and safe treatment option for families in which severe parental alienation has occurred". How is it being too "pro" to quote what the study found and explicitly refers to as "practitioner points?" 2)Likewise, it does not mention "situations where a court finds alienation". Why was this added? 3) Most important, the two paragraphs of this section are almost entirely anti parental alienation theory in nature. It refers to "quack therapy" , substandard research models, claims of harm done by treatment programs etc. If it is acceptable to include all of this in the article, why is it "too pro" to accurately report what Harman's research actually says about the safety and effectiveness of the program. I suggest that my revision is totally appropriate and merely provides a balance to the claims that are made against treatment options. It does not take sides or promote either side of this issue. If anything, the rest of the section needs serious revision for its unbalanced perspective. I humbly request that you restore my revision. I thank you in advance for your handling this request with intellectual integrity. Thanks. Devoted Parent (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be looking for a false balance. In cases like this where the scientific mainstream doesn't accept the condition, we're not supposed to be trying to find a balance - we're supposed to be reflecting the mainstream view. MrOllie (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You say "the scientific mainstream doesn't accept the condition". Of your long and impressive list of references, do ANY of them state PA doesn't occur? Do any of them contend that PA doesn't exist? It may be true that there is a good deal of debate as to PA being a diagnosable mental condition, (I don't know what that has to do with anything.) and it is true that we do not have the ability to accurately measure certain elements of PA. But none of these things refute the existence of PA. The argument of PA being a syndrome and issues of how it can be used or misused in the courts is part of the story that needs to be told. But your article incorporates them into the definition of PA in such a way as to imply Parental Alienation is a hoax. It is not. And btw, you completely omitted the absolutely devastating effect it has on the alienated parents. Instead, you implied they could be child abusers using the claim of PA as a means to re-establish contact with their kids so they can continue abusing them. Thudpuckers (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

We follow the reliable, mainstream sources, not your personal opinion of what the 'story that needs to be told' is. MrOllie (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't be smug. Your "reliable, mainstream sources" have misdirected you. Sure, Dr. Harmon's story about the child abuser using Parental Alienation to win custody of his kids is a compelling, tragic story. And it's true, allegations of Parental Alienation can be misused in court by people with nefarious intentions. That's on the courts to figure out, and eventually they will. You can point out that the scientific community is undecided as to whether or not Parental Alienation is a Syndrome, or that it hasn't been proven to be a diagnosable mental disease, (For that matter, it hasn't been proven to cause cancer either.) You can point out that there isn't reliable data to substantiate the long-term effects on the kids or that there is no method of quantifying certain aspects it. All of these things can be true. But NONE of them disprove the existence of Parental Alienation. That is the part you apparently don't get. Thudpuckers (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The part you don't seem to get is that Wikipedia is simply a summary of the sources that meet its sourcing requirements. Our hands are mostly tied here, if the sources are 'misdirecting' then so to will be the Wikipedia article, that is how this site is designed and it is what our content policies require. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The scientific mainstream *does* however support this condition.

Your position maintains a bias which has been refuted again and again in recent and thorough studies.

The only groups lobbying *against* recognition of PA are selfproclaimed "radical feminists" and dubious women-focused organisations with a clear and unscientific bias.

This article *reads* as if it was written by someone who does *not* believe in PA, and sets out to provoke this feeling in people reading it. It is neither unbiased in its language, nor does it cite enough *recent* studies.

I will try to redact a list of recent studies and add these links to this discussion. meanwhile, the tone of this article is beneath Wikipedia's standards. Even absolutely NON-scientific themes get more respect in its initial description.

As a scientific psychological theory, it conforms to every scientific prerequisite: it has been studied and observed, there is ample testimony from both the parents and children who became victim to it, and there are even a few testimonies from (mostly unwilling) perpetrators who have caused it and regretted it. Its mechanisms are well understood, do not need any new psychological mechanisms as already exist, and have precedents in regular narcissistic abuse. Even the word "syndrome" has analogues in "battered woman syndrome", which is also understood as a form of narcissistic abuse.

Narcissistic abuse explains why the alienating parent with narcissistic traits, as narcissists are known to do, never admits any wrongdoing)

As an example of the schism between serious research confirming PA, and the unfounded nonsense claiming its pseudoscientific character, I suggest taking a look at this review of serious research vs. this typical article making generalizing, unfounded, conspiracy minded claims ("the only psychological disorder in the world that strikes primarily wealthy men" […] "the alienation industry"), without any scientific research to back this up.

Both are links that pop up in a regular Google search, yet the PA confirming links generally lead to serious research, while the PA denialist links lead to popular science articles in Newspapers and Feminist blogs, mostly written by the same handful of detractors who are regularly being discredited for not being serious in their research. InterestedDuckRabbit (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. A review of the scientific, legal and mental health literature (that is not cherrypicked) actually demonstrates that the mainstream scientific community does accept the condition. It is taking sides to present it differently. Therefore, it is very appropriate to present a balanced picture and report accurately what each opinion actually claims. Also, you did not respond to my questions about changing the quote of the study. Devoted Parent (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You added to the article claims about this study and a prior survey of literature that failed verification. I am willing to assume that the errors were not intentional, but it is important that material be presented accurately. Finding references requires reading past a summary on an advocacy website or the abstract of an article -- it requires review of the actual article content.

The quote, "The Turning Points for Families program is an effective and safe treatment option for families in which severe parental alienation has occurred" is not a quote from the study. It is from a pair of "practitioner points" presented along with the study on the Wiley website. The text of the study explains, "Acceptance into the TPFF program is only by court order or by a settlement agreement that must be approved by the court." The article explicitly states that "TPFF makes the assumption that the court" has found that parental alienation has occurred.

As things presently stand stand, the study Harman produced about Turning Point for Families is a small, retrospective study, not controlled, conducted by an advocate for this type of program as opposed to a truly independent auditor, which is of dubious value by WP:RSMED standards. The study describes itself as "preliminary" (both within the content of the article and in the abstract). See, e.g., the RSMED content on weight, bias, caution with regard to use of small-scale studies, and the benefits of independent sources.

This is not a new topic, nor is this the first treatment program that is designed to address "parental alienation"; it is up to those who advocate the theory of parental alienation to conduct better research and build a larger consensus for their theories; as MrOllie explained, it is not the role of Wikipedia to create a false balance. Arllaw (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the subject of false balance, there needs to be a separation between the definition / existence of Parental Alienation and the debate of whether or not it is a syndrome or a diagnosable mental condition or issues of how it is used/misused in the court system. By and large, the scientific community does not refute the existence of PA. And yet because of the way this article is written, a casual reader would get the impression that it is largely unproven. Thudpuckers (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to write letters to the scientific community proposing they draw such a distinction in their writings, which we could then use as a source. But we cannot simply do such a thing on Wikipedia, it would be a violation of one of our core policies: WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's stated policy, anyone can make changes to an article. (With the exception of changing a quotation of a published piece.) It doesn't require changes to have references.

In this case, I omitted the word "theorized" from the opening statement. My reasoning is simple. To the scientific community, the connotation "theory" means "an explanation of". But when the average person sees "a theoretical process by which..." in the opening statement, they go into defense mode, expecting to hear about something that only exists in fantasyland and/or movies.

MrOllie, you are a bot. You don't understand the finer nuances of communication, which, in a subject as human as Parental Alienation is, are crucial. Your claim to be the spokesperson for the mainstream scientific community in this instance is hollow. Please reinstate my change. Thudpuckers (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't require changes to have references. You have greatly misunderstood Wikipedia's policies, because sourcing is absolutely required. Read WP:NOR and WP:V for starters. Personal attacks are not going to get me to support your proposed changes - only reliable sources will. MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Arllaw writes "You added to the article claims about this study and a prior survey of literature that failed verification". I do not know what you are referring to that I made claims about this study that are not verifiable. The study states over and over again exactly what I wrote about it. The Abstract of the study states: "This preliminary evidence indicates that TPFF, similar to other therapeutic structural interventions, is a safe and effective treatment option for severely alienated children". On page 3 & 4 of the study it states: "Although there is also limited research on outcomes for programs designed to treat severe parental alienation, evidence so far does not support the argument that existing programs are ineffective. For example, two outcome studies of the Family Bridges program indicate that between 75% and 95% of children overcame their alienation after participation (Warshak, 2010, 2019), and an initial evaluation of the Family Reflections program found a 95% reunification success rate after 12 months post-intervention for twelve families (22 children; Reay, 2015). Reunification success rates are an important indicator of program efficacy, but they do not directly address critics’ claims about these structured parental alienation intervention programs being ‘unsafe’ or ‘traumatizing’ to the children. Self-report measures from Family Bridges participants indicate that the majority of children rated their experience as positive and they also rated the workshop itself as good or excellent (only 8% rated it as poor), and outcomes from the Family Reflections program are not reported to be ‘traumatizing’ for the children (Reay, 2015). There is not yet any empirical evidence to support allegations that the programs pose safety issues for children. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether another therapeutic treatment program for severely alienated children, Turning Points for Families (TPFF), is safe, does not cause harm". Page 6 states: "6The purpose of this study is to examine whether the TPFF program is effective in supporting the repair and positive relationship between the alienated child(ren) and alienated parent, and to test whether participation in the program is safe and not harmful to the child(ren) as alleged by critics such as Mercer (2019)". Finally, page 15 states: "We found support for the first hypothesis that was tested, which was that the TPFF program would be safe for children". Page 17 concludes: "While this evidence is preliminary, the program was not found to be unsafe for severely alienated children and appears to be effective in doing what it was designed to do: ‘jump-start’ the reunification process with the alienated parent. With continued compliance with court orders and effective aftercare, TPFF is another viable and effective structured therapeutic intervention for families where severe parental alienation has occurred". I again request that my revision be restored to reflect the actually findings of the study without watering it down. The reader of the wiki article can decide if they want to accept the validity of this study. It is not for wiki editors to dismiss bona research just because it does not support their personal views on the topic.Devoted Parent (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If you read and understood the study before adding content to the article, then you know that what you added is not consistent with the study, you know that a quote you represented here as being from the study was not, in fact, from the study, and you know that your challenge to the description of the article, as presented above, was incorrect. You are making it difficult to assume good faith. Arllaw (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The full text of the Harman study is available for public viewing online. Everything I wrote is quoted VERBATIM from the study and I provided the page numbers to insure verification and transparency. What I wrote is not only “consistent with the study”, it is the whole point of the study. The abstract and study are very clear about the hypothesis that they tested and the conclusions of the research. It is deceptive and fraud to publicly claim otherwise in this forum. My original revision to the treatment section said: In spite of the skepticism of critics, peer reviewed studies have begun to confirm that changes in custodial arrangements in favor of the targeted parent are effective in ameliorating parental alienation and that specialized family therapy addressing the alienation is effective in restoring family relationships and family functioning.[39][46] These studies also found that separating the child from the alienating parent was not harmful to the child.[39] A study of Turning Points for Families program for severely alienated children found it to be an effective and safe treatment option for families in which severe parental alienation has occurred.[46] These studies also emphasize that the success of these programs is contingent upon coordination with family courts.[39][46] I quoted two studies. The second study (which was totally removed) is equally clear in its research design and results. It was only removed to minimize the cumulative weight of two studies. The public has the prerogative to make informed decisions and form an opinion on a topic, but personal opinion does not grant the right to censor or minimize dissenting views in the wiki forum. There is nothing inappropriate with the above revision other than the fact that it gives credence to an opinion some disagree with. I again respectfully request the editors of this article to demonstrate intellectual integrity and restore the full paragraph of my revision in its entirety and to refrain from such censorship in the future.Devoted Parent (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If there is a version of the article that is available and not paywalled, it is not clear why you chose not to add a link to it. You quoted one survey of literature and one study -- you do understand the difference, correct? You misstated both. I am really not interested in expending more time and energy trying to work through your blocks of text. Suffice to say, when you add inaccurate or incorrect content to a Wikipedia article you create work for others, and when you argue about it afterward it adds to the entirely avoidable time suck. Arllaw (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the paywall; I thought there was open access. Nevertheless, that does not change the content of the Harman article. Nothing was misstated; the abstract and article were reported correctly. The research files and analytics are available on the Open Science Framework. All the quotes are verbatim. I reiterate that it is outright fraud to claim otherwise. I do agree that the word “preliminary” should be added about the Harman study. The second study is not a survey of literature, it is a systematic review (following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology) as is stated in the articles title and is described in detail on page 4 of the article. There is a significant difference between the value of a literature review and a systematic review which any veteran wiki editor is surely aware of. This review was likewise not misstated. Arllaw has avoided the issue of the censorship of my revision and has repeated the unfounded claim that I am not accurately portraying the content of these studies. I am taking the initiative to reinsert my revision into the article. Any attempt to delete it, censor it, or add editorial comments to it in order to diminish or minimize the value of its content (or any future edits to the article that are censorship and/or blatant editorial comment) will be called to the attention of the Wiki Arbitration Committee and a request for disciplinary action will be made. Devoted Parent (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You can make whatever complaints you would like, but you do need to respect that this project relies upon consensus and has standards for what should and should not be included in an article. Arllaw (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

parental involvement on academic performance

parental involvement on academic performance 112.209.15.203 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you can better explain this issue, and how it relates to the article. Thanks. Arllaw (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Activism section

I am the author of the Head (2026) source cited below and am therefore requesting review rather than editing directly. I propose adding the following paragraph to the end of the Society and culture section. The factual claims are sourced to the campaign organizers' own published account, and the opinion source is attributed in text per WP:RSOPINION. [paste paragraph] Roberth (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Your proposal:

Disagreement over parental alienation has extended into scholarly publishing. Researchers and organizations supporting the concept have formally requested the retraction of critical publications, including the 2021 edited volume Challenging Parental Alienation, which the publisher Routledge declined to withdraw; the campaign's organizers described the book as misinformation likely to harm children and families. In a 2026 opinion article in Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, Keith Robert Head argued that these campaigns applied retraction processes designed for research misconduct to disputes over interpretation, while acknowledging that proponents regard them as efforts to correct misinformation they consider harmful.

My first thought is, is this representative of an ongoing issue? The Routledge/COPE episode alone may not be significant enough to support the addition, although you identify more examples in your essay which might be used to better support the claim.

That is, before inclusion I believe we need to establish that this is a pattern that is sufficiently notable for inclusion, and in that respect it would be helpful to include more examples of the pattern, and independent reliable sources that discuss the phenomenon.

My second thought is that we need to be careful to present this in an encyclopedic manner. If we are to include this, I am thinking of something more along the lines of,

Several proponents of parental alienation have sought retraction or withdrawal of publications critical of the concept. In 2023, Jennifer Harman and William Bernet described their unsuccessful effort to persuade Routledge and the Committee on Publication Ethics to withdraw the book Challenging Parental Alienation, which they characterized as containing misinformation likely to harm children and families. Similarly [additional examples given here.] In a 2026 opinion article, Keith Robert Head argued that these efforts used retraction mechanisms to address scholarly disagreement rather than the forms of research misconduct for which those mechanisms are designed.

References

Arllaw (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of emphasis to give to an opinion article published through a predatory publisher. MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Updating the lead: current research status and assessment models

The lead appears to require updating in light of more recent research. Several of its categorical statements — particularly that no reliable assessment criteria have been established and that the field remains broadly unaccepted within psychology — do not accurately reflect the current published literature.

Operationalised assessment models have been developed and empirically evaluated. Baker’s four-factor model has published reliability and validity evidence, and the Five-Factor Model has demonstrated high inter-rater reliability. These models expressly require differential assessment of abuse, neglect, seriously deficient parenting, the prior parent–child relationship, alienating behaviours, and the child’s manifestations. Contact refusal alone is therefore not sufficient to establish parental alienation.

A comprehensive review published in Developmental Psychology in 2022 identified 213 empirical studies in ten languages and characterised parental alienation as a maturing field of scientific inquiry. More recent scholarly syntheses similarly distinguish the scientific status of the construct from continuing disputes about terminology, causal attribution in individual cases, concurrent abuse allegations, and particular interventions.

I therefore suggest revising the lead in stages, beginning with the following sentence:

Current: “No diagnostic criteria have been established for parental alienation, and proposals made to date have not been established as reliable.”

Proposed: “Operationalised criteria for assessing parental alienation have been developed and empirically evaluated. Studies have reported evidence of reliability and validity for the four-factor model and high inter-rater reliability for the Five-Factor Model. These models require differential assessment of alternative explanations for the child’s rejection; no single behaviour or assessment instrument is sufficient by itself to establish parental alienation.”

Relevant sources:

Baker, A. J. L. (2020). Reliability and validity of the four-factor model of parental alienation. Journal of Family Therapy, 42(1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12253

Bernet, W., & Greenhill, L. L. (2022). The Five-Factor Model for the Diagnosis of Parental Alienation. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(5), 591–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2021.11.026

Morrison, S. L., & Ring, R. (2023). Reliability of the Five-Factor Model for Determining Parental Alienation. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 51(5), 580–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.2021831

Harman, J. J., Warshak, R. A., Lorandos, D., & Florian, M. J. (2022). Developmental Psychology and the Scientific Status of Parental Alienation. Developmental Psychology, 58(10), 1887–1911. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001404

I would welcome suggestions for wording that accurately reflects both the published validation evidence and the limitations of using any single assessment instrument. Jfm4745 (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, a very brief response because I am busy with other things. First, per WP:LEDE, the Lede needs to summarize the article. We cannot and will not make standalone changes to the lede as you describe. The changes need to be made to the article itself first. Second, The American Journal of Family Therapy, is a walled garden journal of very low quality and impact, described by the late lamented academic librarian and Wikipedia editor User:DGG as "a journal of demonstrably abysmal quality.". The other two journals are better but will need close examination because a couple of articles by well-known proponents of the minority position do not necessarily call for a change in the article.Slp1 (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with your point regarding WP:LEDE. The relevant material should first be addressed in the body of the article before any changes to the lead are considered.

I am happy to set Morrison & Ring aside for the present discussion rather than make this depend on The American Journal of Family Therapy.

My narrower concern is the current statement in the Diagnosis section that:

“No diagnostic criteria have been established for parental alienation, and proposals made to date have not been established as reliable.”

and the related statement that no assessment instrument has demonstrated reliability or validity.

Bernet & Greenhill (2022), published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, formally describe the Five-Factor Model as an operationalised framework for differential assessment. The paper itself is not an empirical validation study, but it demonstrates that structured assessment criteria have been articulated in the literature.

Separately, Baker (2020), published in the Journal of Family Therapy, empirically evaluated the related four-factor model using systematically varied vignettes coded by mental health professionals and reported high reliability and evidence supporting the model’s validity within that study design.

I fully agree that this does not establish diagnostic accuracy in real-world cases, nor does it establish causation in an individual family. My point is simply that the present wording appears too categorical. It seems more accurate to state that operationalised assessment models have been proposed and empirically evaluated, while acknowledging that further validation and research on diagnostic performance remain necessary.

Would wording along those lines be acceptable for the body of the article?

Sources:

Baker, A. J. L. (2020). Reliability and validity of the four-factor model of parental alienation. Journal of Family Therapy, 42(1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12253

Bernet, W., & Greenhill, L. L. (2022). The Five-Factor Model for the Diagnosis of Parental Alienation. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(5), 591–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2021.11.026

Harman, J. J., Warshak, R. A., Lorandos, D., & Florian, M. J. (2022). Developmental Psychology and the Scientific Status of Parental Alienation. Developmental Psychology, 58(10), 1887–1911. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001404 Jfm4745 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Those statements are not saying that no diagnostic criteria have been published, they're saying that none are accepted to be reliable, and that's a true statement. This is a summary of the article body, which goes into great detail, including the episode where PA was rejected from the DSM. That a few more attempts have been published really do not change this since there is no evidence that they have been widely adopted. Wikipedia deliberately lags behind the 'cutting edge' of science, this is a good example. It is our job to summarize the mainstream, not to get ahead of it.

So I would disagree with this proposed wording change, which just splits hairs and muddies the issue. MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should summarise the mature secondary literature rather than individual primary studies, and that publication of an assessment model does not by itself establish broad professional acceptance or routine clinical adoption.

My concern, however, is that the current wording appears to make a different claim. It does not simply say that there is no professional consensus or widespread adoption; it states that the proposed criteria “have not been established as reliable.”

Those are two different propositions.

The studies already cited above report empirical evidence concerning reliability and validity and describe operationalised frameworks for differential assessment. More recently, Hine’s 2026 scholarly synthesis reviews the contemporary assessment literature and describes a field containing multiple operationalised models and measures with published psychometric evidence, while also acknowledging continuing debate regarding terminology, implementation, intervention and professional consensus.

None of these sources demonstrates that one model has achieved universal acceptance, nor would I suggest that they do. My concern is narrower: the current wording appears to conflate professional acceptance, DSM recognition and empirical reliability, even though these are distinct questions.

If the intended meaning is that no assessment model has yet achieved broad professional consensus or widespread clinical adoption, that seems more precise than stating that the proposals “have not been established as reliable.”

Is there a recent secondary source supporting the current categorical statement that the proposed criteria “have not been established as reliable”? If so, I would be grateful for the reference.

Hine, B. A. (2026). Understanding parental alienation: Theoretical insights and practical strategies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003630944 Jfm4745 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)