Xem mẫu

506 Assessing Personality and Psychopathology With Interviews population: Application of a 2-stage for case identification. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 345–351. Lesser, I. M. (1997). Cultural considerations using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III for Mood and Anxiety Disorders assessment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assess-ment, 19, 149–160. Levitan, R. D., Blouin, A. G., Navarro, J. R., & Hill, J. (1991). Validity of the computerized DIS for diagnosing psychiatric patients. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 728–731. Lewis, G. (1994). Assessing psychiatric disorder with a human interviewer or a computer. Journal of Epidemiology and Com-munity Health, 48, 207–210. Lindsay, K. A., Sankis, L. M., & Widiger, T. A. (2000). Gender bias in self-report personality disorder inventories. Journal of Per-sonality Disorders, 14, 218–232. Livesley, W. J. (2001). Handbook of personality disorders: Theory, research, and treatment. New York: Guilford. Locke, S. D., & Gilbert, B. O. (1995). Method of psychological assessment, self-disclosure, and experiential differences: Astudy of computer, questionnaire, and interview assessment formats. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 255–263. Loranger, A. W., Susman, V. L., Oldham, J. M., & Russakoff, L. M. (1987). The personality disorder examination: A preliminary report. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1, 1–13. Loranger,A.W.,Sartorius,N.,Andreoli,A.,Berger,P.,Buchheim,P., Channabasavanna, S. M., et al. (1994). The International Per-sonality Disorder Examination: The World Health Organization/ Alcohol,DrugAbuse,andMentalHealthAdministrationinterna-tional pilot study of personality disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51,215–224. Marlowe, D. B., Husband, S. D., Bonieskie, L. K. M., & Kirby, K. C. (1997). Structured interview versus self-report tests van-tages for the assessment of personality pathology in cocaine dependence. Journal of Personality Disorders, 11, 177–190. Maser, J. D., Kaelber, C., & Weise, R. E. (1991). International use and attitudes towards DSM-III and DSM-III-R: Growing consen-sus on psychiatric classification. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-ogy, 100, 271–279. Matarazzo, J. D. (1965). The interview. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of clinical psychology (pp. 403–452). New York: McGraw-Hill. Matarazzo, J. D. (1978). The interview: Its reliability and validity in psychiatric diagnosis. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Clinical diagnosis of medical disorders (pp. 47–96). New York: Plenum. McWilliams, L. A., & Asmund, G. J. (1999). Alcohol consumption in university women: A second look at the role of anxiety sensi-tivity. Depression and Anxiety, 10, 125–128. Menninger, K., Mayman, M., & Pruyser, P. (1963). The vital bal-ance: The life process in mental health and illness. New York: Viking. Miller, W. R. (1991). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change addictive behavior. New York: Guilford. Millon, T. (1991). Classification in psychopathology: Rationale, alternatives, and standards. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 245–261. Millon, T. (2000). Reflections on the future of DSM AXIS II. Jour-nal of Personality Disorders, 14, 30–41. Millon, T., & Davis, R. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM-IV and beyond. New York: Wiley. Modestin, J., Enri, T., & Oberson, B. (1998). A comparison of self-report and interview diagnoses of DSM-III-R personality disor-ders. European Journal of Personality, 12, 445–455. Neal, L. A., Fox, C., Carroll, N., Holden, M., & Barnes, P. (1997). Development and validation of a computerized screening test for personality disorders in DSM-III-R. Acta Psychiatrica Scan-danavia, 95, 351–356. O’Boyle, M., & Self, D. (1990).Acomparison of two interviews for DSM-III-Rpersonalitydisorders.PsychiatryResearch,32,85–92. Oldham, J. M., & Skodol, A. E. (2000). Charting the future of AXIS II. Journal of Personality Disorders, 14, 17–29. Oldham, J. M., Skodol, A. E., Kellman, H. D., Hyler, E., Doidge, N., Rosnick, L., et al. (1992). Comorbidity of Axis I and Axis II dis-orders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 571–578. Perry, J. C. (1992). Problems in the considerations in the valid assessment of personality disorders. American Journal of Psy-chiatry, 149, 1645–1653. Peters, L., & Andrews, G. (1995). Procedural validity of the com-puterized version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto) in anxiety disorders. Psychological Med-icine, 25, 1269–1280. Pfohl, B., Blum, N., & Zimmerman, M. (1995). Structured Inter-view for DSM-IV Personality SIDP-IV. Iowa City: University of Iowa. Pfohl, B., Stangl, D., & Zimmerman, M. (1983). Structured Inter-view for DSM-III-R Personality SIDP-R. Iowa City: University of Iowa College of Medicine. Poling,J.,Rounsaville,B.J.,Ball,S.,Tennen,H.,Krantzler,H.R.,& Triffleman,E.(1999).Ratesofpersonalitydisordersinsubstance abusers:Acomparison between DSM-III-R and DSM-IV. Journal of Personality Disorders, 13, 375–384. Reynolds, W. M. (1990). Development of a semistructured clinical interview for suicide behaviors in adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 2, 382–390. Robins, L. N., Helzer, J. E., Croughan, J., & Ratcliff, K. S. (1981). National Institute on Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Sched-ule.ArchivesofGeneralPsychiatry,38,381–389. Rosenman, S. J., Levings, C. T., & Korten, A. E. (1997). Clinical util-ity and patient acceptance of the computerized Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Psychiatric Services, 48, 815– 820. Ross, H. E., Swinson, R., Doumani, S., & Larkin, E. J. (1995). Diagnosing comorbidity in substance abusers: A comparison of the test-retest reliability of two interviews. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 21, 167–185. References 507 Ross, H. E., Swinson, R., Larkin, E. J., & Doumani, S. (1994). Diagnosing comorbidity in substance abusers: Computer assess-ment and clinical validation. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 182, 556–563. Ruskin, P. E., Reed, S., Kumar, R., Kling, M. A., Siegel-Eliot, R., Rosen, M. R., et al. (1998). Reliability and acceptability of psy-chiatric diagnosis via telecommunication and audiovisual tech-nology. Psychiatric Services, 49, 1086–1088. Segal, D. L., Hersen, M., & Van Hasselt, V. B. (1994). Reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R: An evaluative review. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 35, 316–327. Selzer, M. A., Kernberg, P., Fibel, B., Cherbuliez, T., & Mortati, S. (1987). The personality assessment interview. Psychiatry, 50, 142– 153. Shapiro, J. P. (1991). Interviewing children about psychological issues associated with sexual abuse. Psychotherapy, 28, 55–66. Sloan, K. A., Eldridge, K., & Evenson, R. (1992). An automated screening schedule for mental health centers. Computers in Human Services, 8, 55–61. Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (1995). Intake interviewing with suicidal patients: A systematic approach. Pro-fessional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 41–47. Spitzer, R., & Williams, J. B. (1984). Structured clinical interview for DSM-III disorders. New York: Biometrics Research Devel-opment, New York State Psychiatric Institute. Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (1988). Revised diagnostic criteria and a new structured interview for diagnosing anxiety disorders. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 22(Supp. 1), 55–85. Spitzer,R.,Williams,J.B.,Gibbon,M.,&First,M.B.(1992).Struc-tured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID-II). Washington, DC:American Psychiatric.Association. Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B., & Skodol, A. E. (1980). DSM-III:The major achievements and an overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 151–164. Stangl, D., Pfohl, B., Zimmerman, M., Bowers, W., & Corenthal, M. (1985). Astructured interview for the DSM-III personality disor-ders: A preliminary report. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 591–596. Steinberg, M., Cicchetti, D., Buchanan, J., & Hall, P. (1993). Clini-cal assessment of dissociative symptoms and disorders: The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disor-ders. Dissociation: Progress-in-the-Dissociative-Disorders, 6, 3–15. Strack, S., & Lorr, M. (1997). Invited essay: The challenge of dif-ferentiating normal and disordered personality. Journal of Per-sonality Disorders, 11, 105–122. Sullivan, H. S. (1954). The psychiatric interview. New York: W. W. Norton. Sweeney, M., McGrath, R. E., Leigh, E., & Costa, G. (2001, March). Computer-assisted interviews: A meta-analysis of pa-tient acceptance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment. Philadelphia. Ventura, J., Liberman, R. P., Green, M. F., Shaner, A., & Mintz, J. (1998). Training and quality assurance with Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-I/P). Psychiatry Research, 79, 163– 173. Watkins, C. E., Campbell, V. L., Nieberding, R., & Hallmark, R. (1995). Contemporary practice of psychological assessment by clinical psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 54–60. Watson, C. G., Juba, M. P., Manifold, V., Kucala, T., & Anderson, P. E. (1991). The PTSD interview: Rationale, description, relia-bility and concurrent validity of a DSM-III-based technique. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 179–188. Weiner, I. (1999). What the Rorschach can do for you: Incremental validity in clinical application. Assessment, 6, 327–340. Weiss, R. D., Najavits, L. M., Muenz, L. R., & Hufford, C. (1995). 12-month test-retest reliability of the Structured Clinical Inter-view for DSM-III-R personality disorders in cocaine-dependent patients. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 36, 384–389. Westen, D. (1997). Differences between clinical and research meth-ods for assessing personality disorders: Implication for research and the evaluation of Axis II. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 895–903. Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (2000). A prototype matching approach to diagnosing personality disorders: Toward DSM-V. Journal of Personality Disorders, 14, 109–126. Widiger, T. A. (1992). Categorical versus dimensional classification: Implications from and for research. Journal of Personality Dis-orders, 6, 287–300. Widiger, T. A. (2000). Personality disorders in the 21st century. Journal of Personality Disorders, 14, 3–16. Widiger, T. A., & Frances, A. (1985a). Axis II personality disorders: Diagnostic and treatment issues. Hospital and Community Psy-chiatry, 36, 619–627. Widiger, T. A., & Frances, A. (1985b). The DSM-III personality dis-orders: Perspectives from psychology. Archives of General Psy-chiatry, 42, 615–623. Widiger, T. A., & Frances, A. (1987). Interviews and inventories for the measurement of personality disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 7, 49–75. Widiger, T. A., Frances, A., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (1988). The DSM-III-R personality disorders: An overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 786–795. Widiger, T. A., & Kelso, K. (1983). Psychodiagnosis of Axis II. Clinical Psychology Review, 3, 491–510. Widiger, T., Mangine, S., Corbitt, E. M., Ellis, C. G., & Thomas, G. V. (1995). Personality Disorder Interview–IV: A semi-structured interview for the assessment of personality disorders. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Wiens, A. N., & Matarazzo, J. D. (1983). Diagnostic interviewing. In M. Hersen, A. Kazdin, & A. Bellak (Eds.), The clinical psy- chology handbook (pp. 309–328). New York: Pergamon. 508 Assessing Personality and Psychopathology With Interviews Williams, J. B., Spitzer, R. L., & Gibbon, M. (1992). International reliability of a diagnostic intake procedure for panic disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 560–562. World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioral disorders. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Chauncey, D. L., & Gunderson, J. G. (1987). The Diagnostic Interview for Personality Disorders: Inter-rater and test-retest reliability. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 28, 467–480. Zanarini, M., Frankenburg, F. R., Sickel, A. E., & Yong, L. (1995). Zimmerman, M. (1994). Diagnosing personality disorders: Areview of issues and research methods. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 225–245. Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (1998). Body dysmorphic disorder in psychiatric outpatients: recognition, prevalence, comorbidity, demographic, and clinical correlates. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 39, 265–270. Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (1999a). Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice: Is comorbidity being missed? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 40, 182–191. Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders. Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (1999b). Is posttraumatic stress Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Zanarini, M., Gunderson, J., Frankenburg, F. R., & Chauncey, D. L. (1989). The revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines: Dis-criminating borderline personality disorders from other Axis II disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 3, 10–18. Zilboorg, G. (1941). A history of medical psychology. New York: Norton. disorder underdiagnosed in routine clinical practice? Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 187, 420–428. Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (1999c). Differences between clini-cal and research practices in diagnosing borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1570–1574. CHAPTER 22 Assessment of Psychopathology With Behavioral Approaches WILLIAM H. O’BRIEN, JENNIFER J. MCGRATH, AND STEPHEN N. HAYNES CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF BEHAVIORALASSESSMENT 510 CURRENT STATUS AND APPLICATIONS OF BEHAVIORALASSESSMENT 512 GOALS AND APPLICATIONS OF BEHAVIORALASSESSMENT 513 Topographical Analysis: The Operationalization and Quantification of Target Behaviors and Contextual Variables 514 Identification of Functional Relationships and the Functional Analysis of Behavior 515 Imagine the following: You are intensely worried. You cannot sleep well, you feel fatigued, and you have a near-constant hollow feeling in the pit of your stomach. At the moment, you are convinced that you have cancer because a cough has per-sisted for several days. You’ve been touching your chest, tak-ing test breaths in order to determine whether there is some abnormality in your lungs. Although you would like to sched-ule an appointment with your physician, you’ve avoided making the call because you feel certain that either the news will be grim or he will dismiss your concerns as irrational. In an effort to combat your worries about the cancer, you’ve been repeatedly telling yourself that you’re probably fine, given your health habits and medical history. You also know that on many previous occasions, you developed intense wor-ries about health, finances, and career that eventually turned out to be false alarms. This pattern of repeatedly developing intense and irra-tional fears is creating a new and disturbing feeling of de-pressed mood as you realize that you have been consumed by worry about one thing or another for much of your adult life. Furthermore, between the major episodes of worry, there are only fleeting moments of relief. At times, you wonder whether you will ever escape from the worry. Your friends havenoticedachangeinyourbehavior,andyouhavebecome increasingly withdrawn. Work performance is declining, and BEHAVIORALASSESSMENT METHODS: SAMPLING, DATACOLLECTION, AND DATA EVALUATION TECHNIQUES 517 Sampling 518 Assessment Methods 519 Methods Used to Identify Causal Functional Relationships 521 Methods Used to Estimate the Magnitude of Causal Functional Relationships 523 SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS 525 REFERENCES 526 you are certain that you will be fired if you do not improve soon.Youfeelthatyoumustacttoseekprofessionalhelp,and you have asked some close friends about therapists. No one has any strong recommendations, but you have learned of a few possible professionals. You scan the telephone book, eventually settle on a therapist, and after several rehearsals of what you will say, you pick up the phone. Now, consider the following: If you were to contact a cognitive-behaviorally oriented therapist, what assessment methods would be used to evaluate your condition? What model of behavior problems would be used to guide the focus of assessment, and how would this model differ from ones generated by nonbehavioral therapists? What methods would be used to assess your difficulties? What sort of information would be yielded by these methods? How would the therapist evaluate the information, and how valid would his or her con-clusions be? How would the information be used? These and other important questions related to behavioral assessment are discussed in this chapter. Rather than empha-size applications of behavioral assessment to research ques-tions and formal hypotheses testing, we concentrate on how behavioral assessment methods are operationalized and exe-cuted in typical clinical settings. The initial section of this chapter examines the conceptual foundations of behavioral assessment and how these foundations differ from other 509 510 Assessment of Psychopathology With Behavioral Approaches approaches to assessment. Then we present information about the extent to which behavioral assessment methods are being used by behavior therapists and in treatment-outcome studies. Specific procedures used in behavioral assessment are described next; here, our emphasis is on reviewing bene-fits and limitations of particular assessment strategies and data evaluation approaches. Finally, the ways in which as-sessment information can be organized and integrated into a comprehensive clinical model known as the functional analy-sis are presented. CONCEPTUALFOUNDATIONS OF BEHAVIORALASSESSMENT Two fundamental assumptions underlie behavioral assess-ment and differentiate it from other theoretical approaches. One of these assumptions is environmental determinism.This assumption states that behavior is functional—it is emitted in response to changing environmental events (Grant & Evans, 1994; S. C. Hayes & Toarmino, 1999; O’Donahue, 1998; Pierce, 1999; Shapiro & Kratochwill, 1988). It is further assumed that learning principles provide a sound conceptual framework for understanding these behavior-environment relationships. Thus, in behavioral assessment, problem be-haviors are interpreted as coherent responses to environmen-tal events that precede, co-occur, or follow the behaviors’ occurrence. The measurement of behavior without simulta-neous evaluation of critical environmental events would be anathema. A second key assumption of the behavioral paradigm is that behavior can be most effectively understood when as-sessment procedures adhere to an empirical approach. Thus, behavioral assessment methods are often designed to yield quantitative measures of minimally inferential and precisely defined behaviors, environmental events, and the relation-ships among them (Haynes & O’Brien, 2000). The empirical assumption underlies the tendency for behavior therapists to prefer the use of measurement procedures that rely on sys-tematic observation (e.g., Barlow & Hersen, 1984; Cone, 1988; Goldfried & Kent, 1972). It also underlies the strong endorsement of empirical validation as the most appropriate means of evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of inter-ventions (Nathan & Gorman, 1998). Emerging out of environmental determinism and empiri-cism are a number of corollary assumptions about behavior andthemosteffectivewaystoevaluateit.Theseadditionalas-sumptions characterize the evolution of thought in behavioral assessmentanditsopennesstochange,givenemergingtrends in learning theory, behavioral research, and psychometrics (Haynes & O’Brien, 2000). The first of these corollary as-sumptions is an endorsement of the position that hypothetico-deductive methods of inquiry are the preferred strategy for identifying the causes and correlates of problem behavior. Using this method of scientific inquiry, a behavior therapist will often design an assessment strategy whereby client be-havior is measured under different conditions so that one or more hypotheses about its function can be tested. Two excel-lent examples of this methodology are the functional analytic experimental procedures developed by Iwata and colleagues for the assessment and treatment of self-injurious behavior (Iwata et al., 1994) and the functional analytic psychotherapy approach developed by Kohlenberg for assessment and treat-mentofadultpsychologicaldisorderssuchasborderlinespec-trum behaviors (Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991). Asecond corollary assumption, contextualism, asserts that the cause-effect relationships between environmental events and behavior are often mediated by individual differences (e.g., Dougher, 2000; Evans, 1985; Hawkins, 1986; Russo & Budd, 1987). This assumption supports the expectation that behaviors can vary greatly according to the many unique in-teractions that can occur among individual characteristics and contextual events (Wahler & Fox, 1981). Thus, in con-temporary behavioral assessment approaches, the therapist may be apt to measure individual difference variables (e.g., physiological activation patterns, self-statements) in order to evaluate how these variables may be interacting with envi-ronmental events. A third corollary assumption is behavioral plasticity (O’Brien & Haynes, 1995). This assumption is represented in the behavioral assessment position that many problem be-haviors that were historically viewed as untreatable (e.g., psychotic behavior, aggressive behavior among individuals with developmental disabilities, psychophysiological disor-ders) can be changed if the correct configuration of learning principles and environmental events is built into an interven-tion and applied consistently. This assumption supports per-sistence and optimism with difficult-to-treat problems. It may also underlie the willingness of behavior therapists to work with clients who are eschewed by nonbehavioral practi-tioners because they were historically deemed untreatable (e.g., persons with mental retardation, schizophrenia, autism, psychosis). A fourth assumption, multivariate multidimensionalism, posits that problem behaviors and environmental events are often molar constructs that are comprised of many specific and qualitatively distinct modes of responding and dimen-sions by which they can be measured. Thus, there are many waysinwhichasinglebehavior,environmentalevent,orboth can be operationalized. The multidimensional assumption is ... - tailieumienphi.vn
nguon tai.lieu . vn