Qualitative and quantitative distinctions in personality disorder.
Qualitative and quantitative distinctions in personality disorder.
复制标题
人格障碍的定性和定量区别。
DOI：
10.1080/00223891.2011.577477
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Wright,AidanGC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wright,AidanGC
分类维度的争论已经催化了人格病理学研究的大量经验性进展。然而，这场争论只是一个更广泛的概念问题的一个表达，关于是否将精神病理学定义和描述为正常功能的定量极端表达或在其过程中定性不同。在这篇文章中，我认为，人格的动态模型（例如，对象关系，认知情感处理系统）提供了概念的脚手架，以调和这些看似不相容的方法来表征正常和病态人格之间的关系。我认为，人格评估的进展，样本的行为和经验集中提供了经验技术，而人际关系理论提供了一个综合的理论框架，为实现这一目标。重要的是要了解精神病理学的结构，因为这个结构澄清了哪些结构是有意义的精神病理学家研究，如何分类和评估个人的精神疾病的困难，以及如何进行临床干预。“范畴维度的争论”在历史上一直是对这一结构的理解发展的核心（Kendell，1975; Widiger &特吕尔尔，2007）。随着《诊断报告》的出版，
The categorical–dimensional debate has catalyzed a wealth of empirical advances in the study of personality pathology. However, this debate is merely one articulation of a broader conceptual question regarding whether to define and describe psychopathology as a quantitatively extreme expression of normal functioning or as qualitatively distinct in its process. In this article I argue that dynamic models of personality (eg, object relations, cognitive-affective processing system) offer the conceptual scaffolding to reconcile these seemingly incompatible approaches to characterizing the relationship between normal and pathological personality. I propose that advances in personality assessment that sample behavior and experiences intensively provide the empirical techniques, whereas interpersonal theory offers an integrative theoretical framework, for accomplishing this goal.It is important to understand the structure of psychopathology because this structure clarifies which constructs are meaningful for psychopathologists to study, how to classify and assess individuals with psychiatric difficulties, and how to intervene clinically. The “categorical-dimensional debate” has been historically central to the developing understanding of this structure (Kendell, 1975; Widiger & Trull, 2007). This debate has again taken on heightened significance as the publication of the Diagnostic and