Operationalized psychodynamic diagnostics: A new diagnostic approach in psychodynamic psychotherapy.

Abstract

1990), have very low validity. In other words, the use of these instruments in the clinical practice of psychotherapy is often unsatisfactory. These models abandon the term neurosis and cling to phenomenological and biological concepts that emphasize reliability much more than the validity of a construct (Schneider & Freyberger, 1990;Schneider & Hoffmann, 1992). Psychodynamically inclined psychotherapists deplore the lack of terms and constructs, which are important for psychodynamic conceptualization of personality development and an understanding of mental disorders (e.g., intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts, egofunction; Blanck & Blanck, 1974). These constructs are also helpful in establishing links between symptoms, triggering conflicts, the dysfunctional relations of patients, and their life history in a broad sense. Furthermore, many psychotherapists evaluate the subjective experience of illness and processes of coping with the disorder when they plan therapy, areas that are not considered in these classification systems (Schneider, Freyberger, Muhs, & Schussler, 1993).Another reason for rejecting contemporary models is that these models often define the nature and structure of the therapist-patient relationship and the process of treatment in a manner that is counterproductive to psychodynamic theory. For example, in these models the patient is defined as being a passive object of the diagnostic process. This role is not conducive to the psychotherapeutic process as defined in psychodynamic theory.Systematic approaches to diagnosis and the diagnostic process have had a long tradition within psychodynamic psychotherapy (Balint, Ornstein,

Long‐term outcome and post‐treatment effects of psychoanalytic psychotherapy with young adults

“…The item is rated on a seven‐point Likert‐scale ranging from one (‘very bad’) to seven (‘very good’). SRH has been shown to be a good predictor of mortality and health problems (Heidrich, Liese, Lowel, & Kiel, 2002; Larsson, Hemmingsson, Allebeck, & Lundberg, 2002; Mossey & Shapiro, 1982; Shadbolt, Barresi, & Craft, 2002), and the item has shown good test–retest reliability in a previous study ( r =.92; Lorig et al , 1996).…”

“…In the present study, we have tried to overcome the most recurrent critique among psychoanalytic scholars against the common design of outcome studies (e.g. Blatt & Zuroff, 2005;Kazdin, 2008;Schneider et al, 2002;Westen, Novotny, & Thompson-Brenner, 2004). To increase the external validity, we have adopted a naturalistic stance.…”

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

“…A growing body of research shows that the OPD-LSIA is a sufficiently reliable and valid method for assessing personality structure (for reviews, see Cierpka, Grande, Rudolf, von der Tann, & Stasch, 2007;Cierpka et al, 2001; Rudolf, & OPD Task Force, 2006;Rudolf & Doering, 2012;Schauenburg & Grande, 2011;W. Schneider, Buchheim, et al, 2002;Zimmermann et al, 2010).…”

Disorders of the self: a personality-guided approach

“…'A classification system simply cannot sustain itself by proliferating categories in the absence of a theoretical framework' (Doucette, as cited in Beutler & Malik, 2002, p. 202). Schneider et al (2002) point out:…”