Diagnostic Criteria, Psychological Tests, and Ratings Scales: Extending the History

IF 2.6 0 PHILOSOPHY
Peter Zachar
{"title":"Diagnostic Criteria, Psychological Tests, and Ratings Scales: Extending the History","authors":"Peter Zachar","doi":"10.1353/ppp.2023.a908276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Diagnostic Criteria, Psychological Tests, and Ratings Scales: Extending the History Peter Zachar, PhD (bio) Le moigne narrates a history of the development of psychiatric ratings scales as hybrids between psychological tests and diagnostic categories. In his telling, psychological tests seek to quantify population-based traits on which every person has a position and which tend to be conceptualized as being stable. Personality traits are often conceptualized as dispositions. Diagnostic categories represent not trait-like properties of populations but episodic states consisting of clusters of symptoms experienced by individuals with disorders. Ratings, scales, he notes, are hybrids between the two. They are used to quantify psychiatric symptom clusters so that change over time can be measured. Le Moigne argues that these distinctions were initially suggested during the development of measures that could assess outcomes in psychopharmacological treatment studies. With respect to depression, Le Moigne writes that in the 1970s and 1980s something akin to depressive personality was reconceptualized as a temperament. A key move, somewhat reflective of Kraepelin’s notion of a depressive temperament, was to view a dysthymic temperament as both a predisposing factor and an attenuated form of depression. Thus, an episodic state commandeered the predisposing–dispositional role that was assigned to stable personality traits. This conceptual shift allowed test-like ratings scales to be seen as useful for quantifying not just stable traits, but salient features of episodic states that are potentially subject to change in response to interventions. To put it another way, in the development of a psychological test, one goal is to have high test-retest reliability (i.e., stability of measurement). With rating scales used to measure change, one wants the scores to not be as stable; ideally the scores on the later assessments will be lower. According to Le Moigne, when dysthymia was subsequently placed on axis I of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III (as a syndrome) and segregated from personality disorders which were placed on axis II, personality traits were evicted from the conceptualization of depressive disorders. One perennial feature of psychiatry and psychology is that even if an older idea is superseded [End Page 253] in the view of some thinkers, it can still attract adherents. Indeed, interest in understanding a relationship between personality and attenuated states did not fully disappear. For example, based on research in genetics, the schizophrenia spectrum concept included not only schizophrenia, but also milder conditions such that were conceptualized as personality disorders; that is, schizotypal personality disorder and paranoid personality disorder (Kety, Rosenthal, Wender, & Schulsinger, 1971). During the development of the DSM-IV, some people wanted to add depressive personality disorder to the manual (Phillips, Hirschfeld, Shea, & Gunderson, 1995). It seems to have become a territorial dispute between mood disorder specialists and personality disorder specialists The mood disorders specialists challenged the personality disorder specialists to differentiate depressive personality disorder from early onset, chronic dysthymia. They were able to do so by using criteria such as critical, blaming, and derogatory toward self. After the mood disorders work group proposed incorporating some of those criteria into a revised criteria set for dysthymia, the two sets overlapped. The result was the old criteria for dysthymia were printed in DSM-IV and criteria for depressive personality disorder and the revised criteria for dysthymia were both placed in the appendix. In the DSM-5, Axis II was eliminated and personality disorders were placed alongside all the syndromic symptom clusters at the same level. Even so, interest in attenuated presentations as personality-related lingered still. During the development of the DSM-5 there was some thought to using diagnostic spectra as a meta-structure for organizing the manual (Andrews et al., 2009). One idea was to move some personality disorders into a best fitting spectrum, akin to attenuated forms. This did occur with schizotypal personality disorder which is both in the DSM-5 chapter on schizophrenia and in the chapter on personality disorder. In the schizophrenia chapter it is positioned as the earliest emerging disorder on the spectrum. There was also some interest in grouping avoidant personality disorder with the anxiety disorders, but the evidence supporting such a change was not available. These issues may...","PeriodicalId":45397,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2023.a908276","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Diagnostic Criteria, Psychological Tests, and Ratings Scales: Extending the History Peter Zachar, PhD (bio) Le moigne narrates a history of the development of psychiatric ratings scales as hybrids between psychological tests and diagnostic categories. In his telling, psychological tests seek to quantify population-based traits on which every person has a position and which tend to be conceptualized as being stable. Personality traits are often conceptualized as dispositions. Diagnostic categories represent not trait-like properties of populations but episodic states consisting of clusters of symptoms experienced by individuals with disorders. Ratings, scales, he notes, are hybrids between the two. They are used to quantify psychiatric symptom clusters so that change over time can be measured. Le Moigne argues that these distinctions were initially suggested during the development of measures that could assess outcomes in psychopharmacological treatment studies. With respect to depression, Le Moigne writes that in the 1970s and 1980s something akin to depressive personality was reconceptualized as a temperament. A key move, somewhat reflective of Kraepelin’s notion of a depressive temperament, was to view a dysthymic temperament as both a predisposing factor and an attenuated form of depression. Thus, an episodic state commandeered the predisposing–dispositional role that was assigned to stable personality traits. This conceptual shift allowed test-like ratings scales to be seen as useful for quantifying not just stable traits, but salient features of episodic states that are potentially subject to change in response to interventions. To put it another way, in the development of a psychological test, one goal is to have high test-retest reliability (i.e., stability of measurement). With rating scales used to measure change, one wants the scores to not be as stable; ideally the scores on the later assessments will be lower. According to Le Moigne, when dysthymia was subsequently placed on axis I of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III (as a syndrome) and segregated from personality disorders which were placed on axis II, personality traits were evicted from the conceptualization of depressive disorders. One perennial feature of psychiatry and psychology is that even if an older idea is superseded [End Page 253] in the view of some thinkers, it can still attract adherents. Indeed, interest in understanding a relationship between personality and attenuated states did not fully disappear. For example, based on research in genetics, the schizophrenia spectrum concept included not only schizophrenia, but also milder conditions such that were conceptualized as personality disorders; that is, schizotypal personality disorder and paranoid personality disorder (Kety, Rosenthal, Wender, & Schulsinger, 1971). During the development of the DSM-IV, some people wanted to add depressive personality disorder to the manual (Phillips, Hirschfeld, Shea, & Gunderson, 1995). It seems to have become a territorial dispute between mood disorder specialists and personality disorder specialists The mood disorders specialists challenged the personality disorder specialists to differentiate depressive personality disorder from early onset, chronic dysthymia. They were able to do so by using criteria such as critical, blaming, and derogatory toward self. After the mood disorders work group proposed incorporating some of those criteria into a revised criteria set for dysthymia, the two sets overlapped. The result was the old criteria for dysthymia were printed in DSM-IV and criteria for depressive personality disorder and the revised criteria for dysthymia were both placed in the appendix. In the DSM-5, Axis II was eliminated and personality disorders were placed alongside all the syndromic symptom clusters at the same level. Even so, interest in attenuated presentations as personality-related lingered still. During the development of the DSM-5 there was some thought to using diagnostic spectra as a meta-structure for organizing the manual (Andrews et al., 2009). One idea was to move some personality disorders into a best fitting spectrum, akin to attenuated forms. This did occur with schizotypal personality disorder which is both in the DSM-5 chapter on schizophrenia and in the chapter on personality disorder. In the schizophrenia chapter it is positioned as the earliest emerging disorder on the spectrum. There was also some interest in grouping avoidant personality disorder with the anxiety disorders, but the evidence supporting such a change was not available. These issues may...
诊断标准、心理测试和评定量表:延长病史
诊断标准、心理测试和评定量表:扩展历史Peter Zachar博士(生物)Le moigne叙述了精神病学评定量表作为心理测试和诊断类别的混合体的发展历史。在他的叙述中,心理测试试图量化基于人群的特征,每个人都有自己的位置,这些特征往往被概念化为稳定的。人格特质通常被定义为性格。诊断类别代表的不是群体的特征,而是由疾病个体所经历的症状群组成的偶发状态。他指出,评级和量表是两者的混合体。它们被用来量化精神症状群,以便可以测量随时间的变化。Le Moigne认为,这些区别最初是在评估精神药理学治疗研究结果的措施发展过程中提出的。关于抑郁症,Le Moigne写道,在20世纪70年代和80年代,类似于抑郁人格的东西被重新定义为一种气质。一个关键的举动,多少反映了Kraepelin的抑郁气质的概念,是将心境恶劣的气质视为一种诱发因素和抑郁症的减弱形式。因此,一种偶发状态占据了被分配给稳定人格特质的倾向-性格角色。这种概念上的转变使得类似测试的评分量表不仅可以用来量化稳定的特征,还可以用来量化在干预措施下可能发生变化的情景状态的显著特征。换句话说,在开发心理测试时,一个目标是具有高的重测信度(即测量的稳定性)。对于用来衡量变化的评分量表,人们希望分数不那么稳定;理想情况下,后期评估的分数会低一些。根据Le Moigne的说法,当心境恶劣随后被置于精神疾病诊断与统计手册(DSM)-III(作为一种综合征)的轴I上,并与置于轴II上的人格障碍分开时,人格特征被从抑郁症的概念化中驱逐出去。精神病学和心理学的一个长期特征是,即使在一些思想家看来,一个旧的想法被取代了,它仍然可以吸引追随者。事实上,人们对理解人格与弱化状态之间关系的兴趣并没有完全消失。例如,基于遗传学的研究,精神分裂症谱系概念不仅包括精神分裂症,还包括被定义为人格障碍的较轻微的疾病;即分裂型人格障碍和偏执型人格障碍(Kety, Rosenthal, Wender, & Schulsinger, 1971)。在DSM-IV的开发过程中,一些人想在手册中增加抑郁症人格障碍(Phillips, Hirschfeld, Shea, & Gunderson, 1995)。这似乎已经成为了情绪障碍专家和人格障碍专家之间的领土之争。情绪障碍专家向人格障碍专家提出挑战,要求他们将抑郁型人格障碍与早发性慢性心境恶劣区分开来。他们能够通过使用诸如批评、责备和贬低自我等标准来做到这一点。在情绪障碍工作组提议将其中一些标准纳入心境恶劣的修订标准集之后,这两套标准重叠了。结果是旧的心境恶劣的标准被印在DSM-IV中,而抑郁型人格障碍的标准和修订后的心境恶劣的标准都被放在附录中。在DSM-5中,消除了轴II,将人格障碍与所有症候症状群放在同一水平。即便如此,人们仍然对与个性有关的弱化演讲感兴趣。在DSM-5的开发过程中,有人认为使用诊断谱作为组织手册的元结构(Andrews et al., 2009)。一种想法是将一些人格障碍转移到最合适的范围内,类似于减弱的形式。这确实发生在分裂型人格障碍中这在DSM-5关于精神分裂症的章节和关于人格障碍的章节中都有。在精神分裂症一章中,它被定位为谱系中最早出现的疾病。也有人对将回避型人格障碍与焦虑症分类感兴趣,但没有证据支持这种变化。这些问题可能……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信