Evidence suggests that the Hamilton depression scale is psychometrically and conceptually flawed. The breadth and severity of the problems militate against efforts to revise the current instrument. After more than 40 years, it is time to embrace a new gold standard for assessment of depression.

No abstract

The personality disorder classification system (Axis II) in the various versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been the target of repeated criticism, with conceptual analysis and empirical evidence documenting its flaws. In response, many have proposed alternative approaches for the assessment of personality psychopathology, including the application of the Five‐Factor Model of personality (FFM). Many remain sceptical, however, as to whether domain and facet traits from a model of general personality functioning can be successfully applied to clinical patients with personality disorders (PDs). In this study, with a sample of psychiatric patients (n = 115), personality disorder symptoms corresponding to each of the 10 PDs were successfully predicted by the facet and domain traits of the FFM, as measured by a semi‐structured interview, the Structured Interview for the Five Factor Model (SIFFM; Trull & Widiger, 1997) and a self‐report questionnaire, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI‐R; Costa and McCrae, 1992). These results provide support for the perspective that personality psychopathology can be captured by general personality dimensions. The FFM has the potential to provide a valid and scientifically sound framework from which to assess personality psychopathology, in a way that covers most of the domains conceptualized in DSM while transcending the limitations of the current categorical approach to these disorders. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The authors examined the relationship between self-criticism, dependency, and treatment outcome for 102 participants who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) criteria for major depressive disorder. The participants were randomly assigned to receive either cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy (IPT), or pharmacotherapy with clinical management (PHT-CM) and completed the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (Blatt, D'Affilitti, & Quinlan, 1976), a measure of self-criticism and dependency, as part of a broader research protocol. Regression analyses indicated that among individuals in IPT, self-criticism predicted poorer treatment outcome based on depressive symptom severity measured using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Hamilton, 1960, 1967). In addition, there were trends toward dependency predicting worse treatment response in CBT and self-criticism predicting better treatment response in PHT-CM.

The goal of the present investigation is to compare the factor structure of the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) in samples of respondents differentially motivated to respond in a socially desirable manner. In the French sample, the authors compared the NEO PI-R structure of job applicants (N=12,631) subgrouped by relative degree of socially desirable responding with that of a normative sample (N=801). In the Belgian sample, the authors compared the NEO PI-R structure in naturally occurring groups, including job applicants (N=3,028), individuals receiving career counseling (N=221), and a normative sample (N=549). Results indicate that the NEO PI-R factor structure remained stable across all samples.