New Diagnostic Manual

  • Thread starter Thread starter 50960
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
5

50960

A new tool for psychotherapists

Five psychoanalytic associations collaborate to publish a new diagnostic manual.

By Erika Packard
Monitor Staff
Print version: page 30

Five major psychoanalytic groups, including APA’s Div. 39 (Psychoanalysis) have unveiled a new manual that authors say will improve the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM), though not APA policy, is a collaborative project of Div. 39, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the International Psychoanalytical Association, the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and the National Membership Committee on Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work. The manual (Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations, 2006) is an 857-page diagnostic framework seeking to describe the range of mental functioning in adults, children, adolescents and infants.

PDM authors view it as a complement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that describes both healthy and disordered personalities and symptom patterns. It also offers individual profiles of mental functioning that include patterns of relating, comprehending and expressing feelings.

“The PDM talks about internal experience, and seeks to answer the question, ‘What does it feel like to be someone with a certain mental health disorder?,’” says Div. 39 Secretary Marilyn Jacobs, PhD, a private practice psychoanalyst and assistant clinical professor at the University of California Los Angeles Medical Center who worked on the project.

A new manual is born

Spearheading the new manual’s creation was Stanley Greenspan, MD, a practicing child and adult psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. For many years, Greenspan and his colleagues talked about the need for a diagnostic system that looked at the whole person and would help guide treatment plans. In particular, Greenspan and others were concerned that the DSM inadvertently supports a tendency toward shorter-term treatments and using medication without psychotherapy.

“It was maybe serving the insurance companies’ interests or HMO’s interests, but not patients’ interests,” says Greenspan, who is also clinical professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the George Washington University Medical School.

His concern grew in 2003 when he heard from a supervisor at a public mental health clinic in Washington, D.C., that city clinics were using the DSM as rationale to offer only medication or short-term treatment instead of longer-term psychotherapies.

Greenspan contacted the presidents of the five psychoanalytic organizations, including Jaine Darwin, PsyD, a clinical psychology instructor in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who was Div. 39 president at the time. The presidents of each of these organizations recommended experts to be on task forces to write the PDM as a way of broadening the DSM’s scope.

Task force members drew on their own clinical experience, as well as the clinical literature, available research, and the experiences of other practitioners to represent the current state of understanding of personality patterns and disorders in adults, adolescents, children and infants.

The five associations self-published the manual in an effort to keep the price low—at $35.00 for the softcover and $45.00 for the hardcover—and accessible to students and practitioners, notes Darwin. All proceeds from the sale of the PDM go to the PDM Fund, designated for updating future editions of the manual and for research funding.

A DSM complement

The manual’s authors hope that the PDM will fill a void left in the diagnostic literature with the publication of the DSM-III and subsequently, the DSM-IV. Up through the DSM-II, says Nancy McWilliams, PhD, president of Div. 39, a psychodynamic assumption was built into the DSM. But as psychotherapists developed different orientations (such as biological, cognitive-behavioral and family-systems approaches) there was a push for DSM-III and subsequent manuals to describe disorders from a point of view that was less psychoanalytically oriented and more purely descriptive of easily observable symptoms, says McWilliams.

This standardization was a boon to researchers, she adds.

“With DSM-III, diagnostic categories could be used across orientations and local habits of diagnosis, so that a person in Phoenix doing research on borderline personality disorder would be doing research on the same kinds of patients as somebody in Boston doing research on borderline personality disorder.”

Managed-care organizations and insurance companies also found the later editions of the DSM convenient because they codified mental disorders into discrete, easily billable categories, adds Jonathan Shedler, PhD, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center who contributed to the manual.

However, many therapists felt that information important to therapy had been lost.

The DSM catalogs symptoms well, but with each edition, it has become less effective at guiding treatment plans, identifying underlying disorder patterns and helping therapists determine where a patient is on the continuum from healthy to disordered, notes Greenspan

Breakdown of the PDM

The PDM is divided into three sections, the first of which begins with the P Axis, a description of personality patterns and disorders such as schizoid, paranoid and narcissistic personalities. The first section continues with the M Axis, which profiles mental functioning. This axis includes topics such as an individual’s capacity for regulation, attention and learning, and capacity for relationships. The first section concludes with the S Axis, or the subjective experience of symptom patterns. In this section, the manual’s authors sought to describe what it feels like to have a particular disorder, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, in terms of associated affects, cognitions, somatic states and interpersonal experience.

The second section of the PDM applies the same diagnostic framework as the first section to infants, children and adolescents. The manual’s third section, which is more than half of the book, presents the conceptual and research literature that supports the underlying premises of the PDM.

The differences between the DSM and the PDM come to light when one examines the indexes of both books, says Jacobs. In the DSM, for example, there is no index listing for “suicidality.” Instead, suicide is mentioned under the category of depression as an associated descriptive feature of the disease. In the PDM, however, “suicidality” is listed in the index, along with page numbers referring to sections on the affective and somatic states that accompany it, clinical illustrations, relationship patterns and thoughts and fantasies associated with the desire to end one’s life.

“Suicidal ideation occurs in a number of mental states,” says Jacobs. “Each paragraph [of the PDM entry] talks about a different reason why someone might be suicidal, such as their concept of death, aggressive dynamics or negative mental states. This is a much richer, complex view of why people develop mental disorders than in the DSM.”

Greenspan agrees the new manual can serve as a holistic diagnostic tool. He believes it can help not only psychodynamically oriented but also cognitive and behavioral, family and systems therapists “understand their patients more fully.”

Indeed, even disciplines outside of psychology will find relevant information in the PDM, claims Greenspan.

“We’ve seen interest from people in anthropology, sociology, educators, legal scholars and people in the justice system,” he notes. “It’s broadened the purview of psy-chology to reach into all the related disciplines that deal with human beings.”

APA Treasurer Carol Goodheart, EdD, adds that the PDM “is a rich contribution that deserves to be taken seriously and discussed widely,” as does the World Health Organization’s descriptive International Classification of Function, Disability, and Health (ICF).The ICF classifies function, not disease or disorder, and was developed in collaboration with APA and a multidisciplinary team. It is a companion to the International Classification of Diseases-10, to which APA contributed, and, says Goodheart, which is the standard international classification system for functioning as it relates to health.



For more information on the PDM, visit www.pdml.org.
 
I give it 👍 👍 It's comprehensive, giving a multidimensional view of pts functioning, and it's very helpful in terms tx planning. Also, they've integrated research throughout, which nicely backs up the approach and makes for good follow up reading.

ps I did post a thread on the PDM 3-6 mnths ago...

The correct link is http://www.pdm1.org/
 
I had a brief look at the table of contents. it looks like it consists in adaptations from the DSM with psychodynamic terminology for the most part.

I don't think this is likely to be accepted by those working outside the 5 schools of psychodynamic theory who were involved in its creation...
 
Yeah, I've been using it for 3 months - definitely worth the money, and in my mind, it is much more useful than the DSM in terms of client conceptualization (vs. diagnosis) and tx planning.

P.S. I disagree with TJ. It is not laced with old-school terminology, and incorporates a great deal of new research - should be very useful to anyone in the business of assessment/tx regardless of theoretical orientation.
 
It doesn't seem to have had much of an impact on theory / research:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="psychodynamic+diagnostic+manual"&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

To my mind terms such as: 'neurotic', 'introjective', 'hysterical', 'defensive patterns and capacities', along with the focus on phenomenology (subjective experience) have a decidedly psychodynamic flavor to them.

I need to have a read of it to see how different it is from the DSM. Seems that it is more dimensional rather than categorical (which is nice) but I do worry about the scientific utility...

I suppose that what I am most concerned about is that while cognitive psychology has good prospects for being integrated with neurobiology the link between psychodynamic entities, structures, and functions and neurobiology seems to be a lot more tenuous. There isn't scientific support for the dynamic unconscious despite what some psychoanalytic theorists seem to think. I will be interested to read about the theoretical foundations.

I suppose it will be more useful for practicing psychologists, councellors, and social workers than the DSM. With respect to developing a scientific nosology, on the other hand... I'm a lot more dubious. I think that it is still true to say that many of the diagnostic categories in the DSM have not been validated. Validity isn't as great as it is sometimes taken to be, but when you don't even have that... I wonder how many of the diagnostic categories in this handbook have been validated?
 
Validity isn't as great as it is sometimes taken to be,

I can't believe you just said that. Might I suggest Chronbach & Meehl, 1955 to cure you of whatever is ailing you?
 

Your point? It was just published.

To my mind terms such as: 'neurotic', 'introjective', 'hysterical', 'defensive patterns and capacities', along with the focus on phenomenology (subjective experience) have a decidedly psychodynamic flavor to them.

Um, ya...hence psychodynamic diagnostic manual. Are you meaning 'psychodynamic' as an insult? How would any psychologist practice without understanding 'defensive patterns'? As for the phenomenology of disorders, how would you work with a pt on say an automatic thought record without knowing something of their subjective experience?

I need to have a read of it to see how different it is from the DSM. Seems that it is more dimensional rather than categorical (which is nice) but I do worry about the scientific utility...

It is embarassingly evident you have not read it...

I suppose that what I am most concerned about is that while cognitive psychology has good prospects for being integrated with neurobiology the link between psychodynamic entities, structures, and functions and neurobiology seems to be a lot more tenuous.

Actually...NO, not at all. See Allan Schore, Dan Stern, & Cozolino to get started.

I suppose it will be more useful for practicing psychologists, councellors, and social workers than the DSM.

Adjunctively useful, which is its purpose, and also necessary...our pts are not just their symptoms; they manifest the same dx very differently depending on their unique personality structure and mental functioning. Tx planning needs to account for that accordingly. Science and research should reflect that as well.

With respect to developing a scientific nosology, on the other hand... I'm a lot more dubious.

Nosology is not its purpose.

I wonder how many of the diagnostic categories in this handbook have been validated?

Read the flipping book...research is integrated throughout...*&)%(*

PS Here's a funny observation though: the system classifies according to (P) Personality Patterns, (M) Mental Functioning, and (S) Subjective Experience. This means that we all have PMS :laugh:
 
PS Here's a funny observation though: the system classifies according to (P) Personality Patterns, (M) Mental Functioning, and (S) Subjective Experience. This means that we all have PMS :laugh:

I've been saying that for YEARS, and no one believed me. 🙁 Of course, I was saying women have PMS, men have ESPN.

-t
 
Meghan and T4C, I am so happy to have you here!....welcome Toby, but get ready to be challenged.

MOD
 
I was going to say a bunch of stuff, but Meghan took the words right out of my mouth.🙂
 
Psychodynamic is far from a dirty word. I think a psychodynamic approach (for conceptualization or in practice) can be very valuable, and I find it suspect for anyone to disregard it completely. The manual may have the terminology (I haven't see it yet, so i'm going on what others have said), but i'm sure it can be roughly translated to match up with whatever framework you use.

-t
 
I meant that ‘validity isn’t as great as it is sometimes taken to be’ in the sense that if a construct is valid (if our measurement tools can pick it out reliably) then that doesn’t mean the phenomena forms a scientific category. Maybe my understanding of ‘construct validity’ is off… I thought that super-lunary object (for example) is a construct that we can pick out reliably and yet super-lunary objects are a dodgey natural kind if ever there was one… Of course it would be terrible if we couldn’t even reliably pick it out in the first place (e.g., when people disagree as to who is and who is not a witch) but even if there is a reliable way of picking out instances of the construct that doesn’t show that the instances have anything scientifically interesting in common. Maybe I’m using the terms slightly strangely, however. I’d be happy to take that back if it is incomprehensible or just plain wrong. (I might have all kinds of distinctions like construct validity and reliability etc all run together).

I appreciate that it has just been published, but I guess I would have expected there to be some theoretical debate prior to publication. If you do a google scholar search on ‘DSM V’, for example, then you find quite a lot of debate yet the DSM V hasn't been published yet. I'm not even finding references to this in the psychoanalytic journals...

I’m not meaning ‘psychodynamic’ as an insult. I do wonder, however, how useful therapists practicing outside the psychodynamic traditions will find it. If it is intended for use by psychodynamic theorists and / or therapists then I suppose that is nice so far as it goes. If it is meant to provide an alternative to the DSM for councellors, social workers, and psychologists in general, however, then it may well have alienated itself from cognitive behaviour therapists (for example). I suppose I thought that cognitive behaviour therapists would find it hard going because they wouldn't endorse some of the constructs (like neurotic which was taken out of the DSM, I believe, because there wasn't inter-rater reliability).

What I was sceptical about was attempting a nosology based on phenomenology. Science tends to start with classifying on the basis of superficial properties initially (e.g. alchemy lumped the yellow things with the yellow things) but then it progresses to classifying on the basis of underlying properties in common or causal mechanisms. I was not convinced that moving from behaviours to phenomenology represented a scientific advance. But seems that that is not the intention of the manual.

If it isn’t attempting a classification system then I guess I mistook its aim.

I stated that I hadn’t read it already.

Do you have a shortish paper by Schore, Stern & Cozolino that would be good for me to read? I’ve read stuff on the dynamic unconscious but maybe you have other psychodynamic mechanisms in mind? I thought ‘neurotic’ was taken out of the DSM because they found that clinician’t couldn’t agree on which patients were ‘neurotic’. And… Because ‘neurosis’ is a highly theoretical term and if you don't buy the psychodynamic constructs of the id the ego the superego and the dynamic unconscious...

What is its purpose?

I don’t mind being challenged (in fact I love theoretical debate) so long as people don’t resort to name calling and personal attacks (which they haven’t).
 
I appreciate that it has just been published, but I guess I would have expected there to be some theoretical debate prior to publication. If you do a google scholar search on ‘DSM V’, for example, then you find quite a lot of debate yet the DSM V hasn't been published yet. I'm not even finding references to this in the psychoanalytic journals...

DSM V...meaning there have been 5+ versions, hence you find quite a lot of debate.

There was significant theoretical debate prior to publication of the PDM, which as I mentioned before is integrated throughout the text. Plugging the obvious search term into google scholar is not scholarly research in this case...go to the original sources in the text.

I’m not meaning ‘psychodynamic’ as an insult. I do wonder, however, how useful therapists practicing outside the psychodynamic traditions will find it. If it is intended for use by psychodynamic theorists and / or therapists then I suppose that is nice so far as it goes. If it is meant to provide an alternative to the DSM for councellors, social workers, and psychologists in general, however, then it may well have alienated itself from cognitive behaviour therapists (for example). I suppose I thought that cognitive behaviour therapists would find it hard going because they wouldn't endorse some of the constructs (like neurotic which was taken out of the DSM, I believe, because there wasn't inter-rater reliability).

It is not meant to be an alternative to the DSM, rather a companion text. That is why it follows the same diagnostic categories as the DSM. I'm not sure what your understanding of CBT is or psychodynamic psychotherapy for that matter. They aren't mutually exclusive.

What I was sceptical about was attempting a nosology based on phenomenology. Science tends to start with classifying on the basis of superficial properties initially (e.g. alchemy lumped the yellow things with the yellow things) but then it progresses to classifying on the basis of underlying properties in common or causal mechanisms. I was not convinced that moving from behaviours to phenomenology represented a scientific advance. But seems that that is not the intention of the manual.

If it isn’t attempting a classification system then I guess I mistook its aim.

It is a framework that attempts to characterize the whole person, rather than a catalog of symptoms.

I stated that I hadn’t read it already.

I don't even think you read the initial post or followed the link, which contains the introductory chapter in which you will find the answers to most of your questions.

Do you have a shortish paper by Schore, Stern & Cozolino that would be good for me to read?

How about you look up the above mentioned authors and if you have questions about which of their writings to read I'd be happy to make suggestions? (Teach a man to fish vs. give a man a fish....)

I don’t mind being challenged (in fact I love theoretical debate) so long as people don’t resort to name calling and personal attacks (which they haven’t).

I've been tempted but my ego functioning and defensive structure are mature enough that I can (thus far) restrain my libinal agressive impulses to call you names and annihilate you.
 
TJ,

Not to jump on your back too much, since you do seem interested in disucssing as opposed to just trash talking which is so often found on these boards, but a couple of things you said struck me as funny.

When discussing the theory of science, it seems like better examples exist than "alchemy". Although they might have stumbled onto quite a few discoveries in their pursuit of gold, they are generally synonomous IMO with the absurd end of the spectrum of scientific endeavors.

I think if the devout CBTers aren't interested in this book or anything else it is their loss. I think too much time is wasted in this profession picking a camp and taking sides. That is the downside of theory. If you do enough reading in the various traditions (Psychodynamic, Cognitive, behavioral, etc) I think you will see that much of the time they are using different language for essentially the same construct. Further, all work though social learning. So damn the staunch CBTers and let them use thier own manuals.
 
Do we really need diagnostic texts to help us "conceptualize" an individual human being that sits in front of a therapist in session?

I think labels are fine for research and insurance purposes, but when it comes down to understanding each individual person that comes to a therapist, you can't rely on theoretical orientations or textbooks to help you understand that person's individual experience. Only your own experience and background in the field is really going to provide that.

John
 
Do we really need diagnostic texts to help us "conceptualize" an individual human being that sits in front of a therapist in session?

I think labels are fine for research and insurance purposes, but when it comes down to understanding each individual person that comes to a therapist, you can't rely on theoretical orientations or textbooks to help you understand that person's individual experience. Only your own experience and background in the field is really going to provide that.

John

In so far as it is our job to "understand" our pts based on scientific research and develop tx with some empirical basis...I'm inclined to say "Yes".
 
I have no real issue with a text that wants to look at ways to conceptualize the interactions of pathology, environment and the person and I have found other texts helpful in conceptualizing anything in psych and neurology for that matter (eg poorly treated diabetes in a adolescents confused with bipolar disorder). There is a potential problem with predicition and course of disorders when you get away from the DSM model to a degree.

You'll end up seeing texts that look at Autism as an environmentally caused condition (I have not read this text, so it is not a critism of it) and I see a lot of psychologists looking for explanitory data and finding it in these types of systems.

For example, a couple of years ago I was called in for a second opinion on a 24-y-o female with depression. She had been in therapy for 6 weeks and the psychologist thought her rapid onset depression was an adjustment to recent marriage, new job, move all within the past two months. This would have been fine except she was suicidal, had mood swings, temp dysregulation and lethargy. None of which are consistent with that type of depression. I sent her for thyroid testing and she ended up hospitalized in no small part because of the time wasted by a psychologist who could not effectively consider symptom clasification but had a wonderful conceptualization of the "causes" of her depression.
 
Neuro-Dr, I totally agree, but isn't this more about the lack of proper bio training for most psychologists?
 
Perhaps, but Skinner once said that the problem with psychologists is that they forget that they are human first and psychologists second and thus are prone to the same errors as all humans. The problem is that most psychologist don't believe that this is true. Thus, they see it as perfectly reasonable to interpret the world through their theoretical lens. This is why most normal people cringe a little when you tell them what you do. You don't see that with other types of doctors. I worry about any book that is going to "conceptualize" a person. I agree with DocJohn that this can lead to confirmatory biases.
 
I'll try and explain what I meant with the alchemy example.

If you look at the history of science there is this pattern of initially classifying the natural kinds on the basis of superficial, observable properties. Aristotle developed a taxonomy for biological kinds that was constructed on the basis of superficial similarities, for example. According to superficial similarities whales are more like fish than like horses. The alchemists similarly developed a taxonomy for chemical kinds (different kinds of substance) on the basis of superficial similarities or properties. The DSM similarly developed a taxonomy for kinds of mental disorders on the basis of superficial (behavioural and verbal behavioural for the most part) properties. All of the above systems of classification are sometimes regarded as systematisations of common sense. There is debate over whether this activity is engaging in science or whether it is fairly much pre-science.

In the next stage classifications are done on the basis of similarities in underlying causal mechanisms. Thus modern systematics classifies biological kinds on the basis of the causal mechanism of historical lines of descent / lineage. According to modern systematics whales are more like horses than fish. Modern atomic theory similarly classifies different kinds of substances on the basis of the chemical kinds that feature in the periodic table of elements. Each element shares the same underlying mechanisms that cause the superficial properties that we observe in the substances. The DSM... Er... Is still an infant science. It is still at the first stage of science (or possibly even at the pre-science stage of science). In order to progress as a science mental disorders need to be classified on the basis of causal mechanisms.

The twin aims of science are 1) generalisability. 2) predictive leverage. With respect to generalisability the thought is that individuals who are a member of the same kind have similar causal mechanisms that are responsible for producing similar symptoms. Thus if you know that an individual is a member of a kind (e.g., 'depressive') then you can generalise from the symptoms of other people with depression to the likely symptoms of this person with depression. Diagnoses thus tend to be used as heuristics. If one knows the patient has a diagnosis of depression then one can predict what symptoms they are likely to have which cuts down on the time it takes to assess someone. Because different individuals who are members of the same kind share similar causal mechanisms and behavioural symptoms it is also thought that one can make generalisations into what kinds of treatments are likely to be efffective and what the course of illness is likely to be.

The trouble is that the DSM categories really aren't terribly useful with respect to scientific research. This is why a number of researchers have disgarded them as a basic unit of research analysis and instead they have gone with the symptom.

One of my concerns is what Hacking talks about as the 'looping effect of human kinds'. The notion is simply that categorising someone is a causal mechanism that makes it more likely that the person will behave in accordance with the stereotype. If you tell someone they have schizophrenia and schizophrenia tends to be chronic then do you think you have increased or decreased the probability of recovery?

I'm still not sure what work this classification system is supposed to be doing... Though admittedly I have yet to read what is available about it online.

I guess I agree with the concern about classifying individuals. I don't think the DSM classifications are particularly scientifically useful and I think they can be positively harmful to patients. I don't see this classification as an improvement on the DSM, either. But maybe that comes of my view of scientific progress.

While it is nice that it attempts to be holistic it reminds me of how the DSM used to be holistic in the sense of saying that a person was 'schizophrenic'. Not particularly PC anymore so the DSM was revised to less holistically state 'person with schizophrenia'. Because... People have symptoms but there is much much more to them than those. I don't have issues with a text that wants to look at ways to conceptualise the interactions of pathology, environment, and the person either. I really do think, however, that they should look at the causal mechanisms that interact between them (including the effects of classifying) in order to move forward.
 
It seems it might be useful to post info from the PDM that addresses some of the concerns people have raised.

I was incorrect when I stated that it's pupose is not nosology (damn that Skinner). Here is an excerpt from the discussion of psychoanalytic conceptions of nosology:

"...The first is a dynamic conception of nosology as a living, ever-changing, and constructed corpus, in a constant state of flux and growth as our clinical and theoretical base grows, rather than a classificatory reality that somehow exists out there in nature and that we think we discover rather than create. The second, equally psychoanalytic, perspective is that nosology and diagnosis derive their relevance from their full imbrication with issues of overall case formulation and understanding, of prognosis, of treatability and treatment indications, and then of differential treatment planning. In isolation from these, nosology becomes indeed a static, almost meaningless, enterprise." (pp. 387)

Here's info on the actual classification system (for adults):

The P Axis Personality Patterns and Disorders addresses 15 categories of Personality Disorders and their subtypes. The following is described for each category: contributing constitutional-maturational patterns, central tension and preoccupation, central affects, characteristic pathogenic belief about the self, pathogenic belief about others, and central ways of defending. Also included are general implications for psychotherapy.

The M Axis, Mental Functioning, categorizes capacity for regulation, attention, and learning; capacity for relationships and intimacy (including depth, range, and consistency); quality of internal experience ( level of confidense and self-regard; capacity for affective experience, expression, and communication; defensive patterns and capacities; capacity to form internal representations; capacity for differentiation and integration; self-observing capacities (psychological mindedness); capacity to construct ir use internal standards and ideals (sense of morality).

The S Axis, Symptom Patterns: The Subjective Experience, builds on the descriptions of the DSM-IV-TR. "symptom are not simply disorders in their own right but are, rather, overt expression of the ways in which individual patients characteristically cope with experience...a person may have symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and/or impulse control problems as part of an overall emotional challenge. For example, problems with impulse control and mood regulation are common in patients with the larger developmental deficit of being unable to represent (symbolize) a wide range of affects and wishes (Greenspan, 1997)."

Happy Friday...........
 
My nosology is quite cold here in Co with our current temp of -5 F. I am hoping this provokes PsiKo.........
 
Thanks for posting that. Something that occured to me is that there may be very different conceptions of what a nosology should be. I suppose that depends on the purpose of the classification scheme.

One purpose could be to figure out causal relationships. The point of having knowledge of causal relationships (if you accept Woodward's interventionist account of causation) is that we have knowledge of possible points of intervention.

Another purpose could be to help therapists help their clients. This aim could diverge from the above aim because some of the interventions that factor in the above approach could well be irrelevent.

I guess the point came up about whether any system of classification is useful for therapists or whether it detracts from the therapist relating to the patient as they are.

"...The first is a dynamic conception of nosology as a living, ever-changing, and constructed corpus, in a constant state of flux and growth as our clinical and theoretical base grows, rather than a classificatory reality that somehow exists out there in nature and that we think we discover rather than create. The second, equally psychoanalytic, perspective is that nosology and diagnosis derive their relevance from their full imbrication with issues of overall case formulation and understanding, of prognosis, of treatability and treatment indications, and then of differential treatment planning. In isolation from these, nosology becomes indeed a static, almost meaningless, enterprise." (pp. 387)

I have to admit that I struggle with the above quote... I'm not at all sure what it means. I think that the first conception is really an account of how nosologies progress over time rather than an account of the nature of a nosological system. In denying that there is an objective system to be discovered perhaps they mean to deny that there actually are causal mechanisms involved in mental disorders? I'm not quite sure what to make of this... Perhaps they don't think of nosology as something that defines kinds or types on the basis of causal mechanisms? The second one sounds causal to me...

But... Aren't causes objective and don't we want to be working towards developing a system that more accurately captures that objective reality?
 
Top