心理学家对DSM-5及其替代品的态度。

IF 1.5 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
J. Raskin, D. Maynard, Michael C. Gayle
{"title":"心理学家对DSM-5及其替代品的态度。","authors":"J. Raskin, D. Maynard, Michael C. Gayle","doi":"10.1037/pro0000480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"interventions to utilization of social cognitive perspectives in promoting biodiversity conservation. Abstract A survey of psychologist s’ attitudes toward the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and its alternatives was conducted. Almost 90% of psychologists reported regularly consulting DSM-5, despite dissatisfaction with it. However, opinions varied by theoretical orientation. Cognitive-behavioral psychologists held positive attitudes about DSM, whereas psychodynamic and humanistic/constructivist/systems psychologists were negatively inclined toward it. Integrative/eclectic psychologists were in between. Diagnostic codes and identifying pathology were seen as DSM-5 ’s biggest advantages, and the medicalization of psychosocial problems and obscuring individual differences as its biggest disadvantages. Psychologists supported developing alternatives to DSM-5, but when asked about six alternatives — International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual 2 (PDM), Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD), Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), and Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) — they were generally unfamiliar with them except for ICD. Although not wishing to abandon the medical model, psychologists (except for cognitive-behaviorists) said DSM-5 relies too much on medical semantics and questioned whether mental disorders should be considered a subset of medical disorders. Overall, psychologists use DSM for practical reasons (diagnostic categories and codes) more than scientific ones (validity and reliability). This finding affirms something remarkable: Despite ongoing attention to revising and improving DSM over the past four decades, psychologists remain lukewarm toward it and strongly interested in alternatives. However, until alternatives are better known and provide the necessary practical advantages, psychologists will likely continue to use DSM despite their mixed feelings about it.","PeriodicalId":48217,"journal":{"name":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychologist attitudes toward DSM-5 and its alternatives.\",\"authors\":\"J. Raskin, D. Maynard, Michael C. Gayle\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pro0000480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"interventions to utilization of social cognitive perspectives in promoting biodiversity conservation. Abstract A survey of psychologist s’ attitudes toward the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and its alternatives was conducted. Almost 90% of psychologists reported regularly consulting DSM-5, despite dissatisfaction with it. However, opinions varied by theoretical orientation. Cognitive-behavioral psychologists held positive attitudes about DSM, whereas psychodynamic and humanistic/constructivist/systems psychologists were negatively inclined toward it. Integrative/eclectic psychologists were in between. Diagnostic codes and identifying pathology were seen as DSM-5 ’s biggest advantages, and the medicalization of psychosocial problems and obscuring individual differences as its biggest disadvantages. Psychologists supported developing alternatives to DSM-5, but when asked about six alternatives — International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual 2 (PDM), Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD), Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), and Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) — they were generally unfamiliar with them except for ICD. Although not wishing to abandon the medical model, psychologists (except for cognitive-behaviorists) said DSM-5 relies too much on medical semantics and questioned whether mental disorders should be considered a subset of medical disorders. Overall, psychologists use DSM for practical reasons (diagnostic categories and codes) more than scientific ones (validity and reliability). This finding affirms something remarkable: Despite ongoing attention to revising and improving DSM over the past four decades, psychologists remain lukewarm toward it and strongly interested in alternatives. However, until alternatives are better known and provide the necessary practical advantages, psychologists will likely continue to use DSM despite their mixed feelings about it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48217,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000480\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Professional Psychology-Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000480","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

利用社会认知视角促进生物多样性保护的干预措施。摘要调查了心理学家对《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》(DSM-5)及其替代手册的态度。几乎90%的心理学家报告说,尽管对DSM-5不满意,但他们还是定期咨询该手册。然而,理论取向不同,观点也不同。认知行为心理学家对DSM持积极态度,而心理动力心理学家和人本主义/建构主义/系统心理学家对DSM持消极态度。综合/折衷心理学家介于两者之间。诊断代码和病理鉴定被视为DSM-5的最大优点,而对心理社会问题的医学化和模糊个体差异则被视为其最大的缺点。心理学家支持开发DSM-5的替代方案,但当被问及国际疾病分类(ICD),研究领域标准(RDoC),精神动力学诊断手册2 (PDM),操作化精神动力学诊断(OPD),精神病理学分层分类法(HiTOP)和权力威胁意义框架(PTMF)这六个替代方案时,除了ICD,他们通常不熟悉它们。尽管不希望放弃医学模式,心理学家(除了认知行为主义者)说DSM-5过于依赖医学语义,并质疑精神障碍是否应该被视为医学障碍的一个子集。总的来说,心理学家使用DSM是出于实际原因(诊断类别和代码)而不是科学原因(有效性和可靠性)。这一发现证实了一些值得注意的事情:尽管在过去的四十年里,人们一直在关注修改和改进DSM,但心理学家对它仍然不温不热,而是对替代方案非常感兴趣。然而,在替代方案被更好地了解并提供必要的实用优势之前,心理学家可能会继续使用DSM,尽管他们对它的感觉很复杂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychologist attitudes toward DSM-5 and its alternatives.
interventions to utilization of social cognitive perspectives in promoting biodiversity conservation. Abstract A survey of psychologist s’ attitudes toward the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and its alternatives was conducted. Almost 90% of psychologists reported regularly consulting DSM-5, despite dissatisfaction with it. However, opinions varied by theoretical orientation. Cognitive-behavioral psychologists held positive attitudes about DSM, whereas psychodynamic and humanistic/constructivist/systems psychologists were negatively inclined toward it. Integrative/eclectic psychologists were in between. Diagnostic codes and identifying pathology were seen as DSM-5 ’s biggest advantages, and the medicalization of psychosocial problems and obscuring individual differences as its biggest disadvantages. Psychologists supported developing alternatives to DSM-5, but when asked about six alternatives — International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual 2 (PDM), Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD), Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), and Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) — they were generally unfamiliar with them except for ICD. Although not wishing to abandon the medical model, psychologists (except for cognitive-behaviorists) said DSM-5 relies too much on medical semantics and questioned whether mental disorders should be considered a subset of medical disorders. Overall, psychologists use DSM for practical reasons (diagnostic categories and codes) more than scientific ones (validity and reliability). This finding affirms something remarkable: Despite ongoing attention to revising and improving DSM over the past four decades, psychologists remain lukewarm toward it and strongly interested in alternatives. However, until alternatives are better known and provide the necessary practical advantages, psychologists will likely continue to use DSM despite their mixed feelings about it.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Professional Psychology-Research and Practice
Professional Psychology-Research and Practice PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: Professional Psychology: Research and Practice® publishes articles on the application of psychology, including the scientific underpinnings of the profession of psychology. Articles that present assessment, treatment, and practice implications are encouraged. Both data-based and theoretical articles on techniques and practices used in the application of psychology are acceptable.
×
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