2018
DOI: 10.1037/rep0000218
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Developing an integrative level–dimensional taxonomy model for rehabilitation psychology research and practice.

Abstract: This integrative level-dimensional taxonomy model provides a structure for organizing all aspects of rehabilitation psychology relevant to understanding, assessing, and influencing the rehabilitation process. Suggestions for development and research are provided for the taxonomy model. (PsycINFO Database Record

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 115 publications
(171 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The widely discussed issue of categorical and dimensional diagnosis has continued its development as well (e.g., Kraemer, Noda, & O’Hara, 2004) and this discussion is at the core of Bütz et al’s (2009) reconceptualization of FDBP. This debate has received important updates (see Biondi, Gaetano, Pasquini, & Picardi, 2018; Mermis, 2018; Nazem, Spitzer, Brenner, & Bahraini, 2014). Of particular significance are those who have taken the long view regarding the artificial distinction imposed on diagnostic phenomena by categorization at the expense of dimensional considerations in the DSM–5 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The widely discussed issue of categorical and dimensional diagnosis has continued its development as well (e.g., Kraemer, Noda, & O’Hara, 2004) and this discussion is at the core of Bütz et al’s (2009) reconceptualization of FDBP. This debate has received important updates (see Biondi, Gaetano, Pasquini, & Picardi, 2018; Mermis, 2018; Nazem, Spitzer, Brenner, & Bahraini, 2014). Of particular significance are those who have taken the long view regarding the artificial distinction imposed on diagnostic phenomena by categorization at the expense of dimensional considerations in the DSM–5 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%