Die Strukturachse der operationalisierten psychodynamischen Diagnostik (OPD): Zusammenhänge mit soziodemographischen, klinischen und psychopathologischen Merkmalen sowie kategorialen Diagnosen

Abstract

To assess the relationship between the axis IV (structure) of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostics (OPD) and sociodemographic, clinical and psychopathological features, we rated the structural level of 156 psychiatric inpatients, which was related to sociodemographic variables, to clinical diagnoses (particularly to personality and substance use disorders), to suicidal ideation and self-injurious behavior (SIB) as well as to the psychopathological impairment at admission (measured by the SCL-90). We found significant associations among the structural level on the one hand and the marital status, the professional group, a comorbid personality disorder, suicidal ideation and SIB on the other hand. There were no associations with the sex, the age, the school education, the occupational situation or the SCL-90 findings. Our results replicate and extend previous findings. For every-day routine, it is possible to derive a preliminary judgement of the structural level by means of the marital status, the professional group, a comorbid personality disorder, suicidal ideation and SIB.

Assessment of Personality Functioning: Validity of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis Axis IV (Structure)

“…Taken together, these analyses show that the OPD-2 structure axis is characterized by good discriminant validity. This was already reported previously for the OPD-1 structure axis, which detected worse personality functioning in patients with personality disorders, addiction disorders, and self-mutilating behavior [41,42,43]. …”

Assessing the Level of Structural Integration Using Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD): Implications forDSM–5

“…Second, as a lower level of structural integration makes people more vulnerable to experiencing negative psychological outcomes, the OPD-LSIA was expected to be significantly correlated with self-reports of general distress and interpersonal problems. This assumption was confirmed in three clinical samples (Benecke et al, 2009;Mestel et al, 2004;Spitzer et al, 2002aSpitzer et al, , 2004. General distress was measured by the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1977) or the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1993), and interpersonal problems were assessed using the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex (IIP-C; Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 1990).…”

“…Schneider, Lange, & Heuft, 2002;G. Schneider, Mendler, Heuft, & Burgmer, 2008;Spitzer, Michels-Lucht, Siebel, & Freyberger, 2002a, 2002b, 2004Schauenburg, 2000;Strauß, Hüttmann, & Schulz, 1997;Thomasius et al, 2001;Uzdawinis et al, 2010). In the following, we highlight the most relevant findings.…”

“…For example, patients with a lower level of structural integration have a more negative body concept (G. Schneider et al, 2008), show more insecure attachment styles (Schauenburg, 2000), treat themselves and others in a more hostile way (Mestel et al, 2004), are prone to self-injurious behavior (Böker et al, 2008;Spitzer et al, 2002a), are more likely to experience psychotic symptoms (Uzdawinis et al, 2010), have a longer duration of mental illness (Rudolf et al, 1996), and tend to be indicated for psychiatric rather than psychotherapeutic treatment (G. . Moreover, there is some evidence that a better level of structural integration is advantageous in terms of symptom change or treatment success, as judged by patients or therapists (Müller et al, 2006;Rudolf et al, 1996;Spitzer et al, 2004;Strauß et al, 1997; but also see Thomasius et al, 2001).…”

Psychodynamic Vulnerability Factors in the Development of Panic Disorders – A Prospective Trial in Patients after Vestibular Neuritis

“…In psychiatric patients, the most difficult distinction to draw is between personalities that show good integration and those that show moderate integration [23] .…”