What do practitioners consider the most helpful personality taxa in understanding their patients?
Creators: name: Gordon, Robert
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2023
Subjects: Clinical and health psychology not elsewhere classified
Clinical neuropsychology
Clinical psychology
Counselling psychology
Health psychology

description: <em>basically classify mental disorders according to manifest symptoms, the</em> <em>Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manuals (PDM Task Force (2006) 1 and 2 (Lingiardi &amp; McWilliams</em> <em>in press) are taxonomies based on the dynamics of the whole person. The PDM considers in</em> <em>addition to manifest symptoms: personality organization (healthy, neurotic, borderline,</em> <em>psychotic2), personality disorders or syndromes (e.g. schizoid, histrionic, narcissistic, etc.), and</em> <em>mental functioning (e.g. capacity for intimacy, defensive level, self observing capacity, etc.). The</em> <em>aim of this categorization is to better inform psychotherapy. However, since the PDM is</em> <em>associated with a psychodynamic orientation, it is uncertain if the typical practitioner would</em> <em>accept a taxonomy not based on manifest symptoms.</em> <em>In order to assess this, we asked a sample of mental health practitioners from a wide range of</em> <em>educational backgrounds and theoretical orientations. The participants filled out a demographic</em> <em>survey, rated a recent client on the Psychodiagnostic Chart (PDC) and then rated the clinical</em> <em>usefulness of each diagnostic taxon (1 = not at all helpful, 7 = very helpful).</em> <em>Robert M. Gordon and Robert F. Bornstein (2012) developed the Psychodiagnostic Chart (PDC)</em> <em>as an operationalized guide to the Adult diagnostic section of the PDM. Gordon and Stoffey</em> <em>(2014) found excellent construct validity and excellent two-week test-retest reliability. The PDC</em> <em>was recently updated for the PDM2.3</em> <em>The volunteers (N = 438) were recruited from 14 workshops on the DSM, ICD and PDM. In this</em> <em>sample, 46% held doctoral degrees, 67% were female, 60% were age 50 or older. Primary</em> <em>orientations were 41% Family Systems, Humanistic/Existential or Eclectic and 33% CBT. Only</em> <em>26% identified themselves as primarily having a psychodynamic orientation.</em> <em>The results of our survey indicated that the percent rated as “helpful – very helpful” (ratings from</em> <em>5-7) in understanding their patient for each diagnostic taxon were: level of personality</em> <em>organization 75% (M = 5.3, SD = 1.40), personality disorders 62% (M = 4.9, SD = 1.49), mental</em> <em>functioning 67% (M =5 .0, SD = 1.40), and cultural/contextual issues 41% (M= 4.7, SD= 1.54).</em> <em>Only 30.5% (M = 4.2, SD =1.47) rated symptoms as “helpful- very helpful” in understanding</em> <em>their patient. Wilcoxon Sign Ranked Nonparametric Paired Tests was used due to the skewed</em> <em>distributions. All of the diagnostic dimensions</em> <em>1 Coauthors after Dr. Gazzillo are listed in alphabetical order. Many thanks for the help with recruitment and data collection go to: Debra Kay</em> <em>Bennett, Amy Brosof, Robert Galligan , Jenny Holcomb, Arpana G. Inman, Linh Luu, Bindu Methikalam, Sneha A. McClincey, Susan C.</em> <em>McGroarty, Allison Otto, Bethany Perkins, Judi Ralph and Ken Ralph (J&amp;K Seminars), Val Spektor, Lauren Turner and Christina Villani. The</em> <em>IRBs of Muhlenberg College and Chestnut Hill College determined that this project adequately protects the welfare, rights, and privacy of human</em> <em>subjects.</em> <em>2 The PDM1 did not include a psychotic level of personality organization, but psychotic level is in the PDM2. 3 For free copies of the</em> <em>Psychodiagnostic Chart go to: https://sites.google.com/site/psychodiagnosticchart/</em> <em>1</em> <em>Favored diagnostic taxa</em> <em>were significantly different at p &lt; .0001, except the differences between personality</em> <em>disorders and cultural/contextual issues which was p = .004.</em> <em>These results suggest that the typical practitioner would find the taxonomy of the PDM1 and</em> <em>PDM2 as clinically useful (the PDM2 has essentially the same taxonomic classification as the</em> <em>PDM1). They even value personality organization, personality disorders or syndromes, and</em> <em>mental functions more than manifest symptoms for helping to understand their clients. However,</em> <em>students and practitioners need to be educated about</em>