The choices in developmental psychology

Following up on this post (and related linked posts therein), it seems there is a choice in developmental explanations between empirical studies with quantitative, calibrated and internally consistent measurements, and quasi-religious, self-aggrandized, flagrant ideology. We see this choice playing out in this forum in a legitimization battle for what is integral. And please, spare me the false equivalence argument that it is an integration of equally valid and complementary perspectives.

"In this preliminary review, it also appears that contemporary uses of of sentence completion methods to measure ego-development are not justified by peer-reviewed and reliability studies. [...] It appears that the LAS [Lectical Assessment System] and HCSS [Hierarchical Complexity Scoring System] are the only metrics that have been calibrated using quantitative indexes on internal consistency. This means that the LAS and HCSS are the only ones that can be validly and reliably used to access individuals. They are the only calibrated metrics in the set; the rest are soft measures that should only be used for research purposes" (19).

Stein & Heikkinen (2009). "Models, metrics and measurement in development psychology." Integral Review, 5:1