The role of theoretical orientation in determining preference for different methods of diagnosis has been largely unexplored. The goal of the present study was to explore ratings of the usefulness of 4 diagnostic methods after applying them to a patient: prototype ratings derived from the SWAP-II, the DSM-5 Section III specific personality disorders, the DSM-5 Section III trait model, and prototype ratings derived from the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM). Three hundred and twenty-nine trainees in APA-accredited doctoral programs and internships rated one of their current patients with each of the 4 diagnostic methods. Individuals who classified their theoretical orientation as “cognitive- behavioral” displayed a significantly greater preference for the proposed DSM-5 personality disorder prototypes when compared to individuals who classified their orientation as “psychodynamic/psychoanalytic,” while individuals who considered themselves psychodynamic or psychoanalytic rated the PDM as significantly more useful than those who considered themselves cognitive-behavioral. Individuals who classified their graduate program as a PsyD program were also more likely to rate the DSM-5 Section III and PDM models as more useful diagnostic methods than individuals who classified their graduate program as a PhD program. Implications and future directions will be discussed.

Keywords:
Personality disorders, Therapeutic orientation, Theoretical orientation, Diagnostic methods, Diagnostic models
1.
Bishop JB, Richards TF: Counselor theoretical orientation as related to intake judgments. J Couns Psychol 1984;31:398-401.
2.
Houts AC: Effects of clinician theoretical orientation and patient explanatory bias on initial clinical judgments. Prof Psychol Res Pract 1984;15:284-293.
3.
Dirmaier J, Harfst T, Koch U, Schulz H: Therapy goals in inpatient psychotherapy: differences between diagnostic groups and psychotherapeutic orientations. Clin Psychol Psychother 2006;13:34-46.
4.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), ed 4. Arlington, American Psychiatric Association, 2000.
5.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5). Washington, American Psychiatric Association, 2013.
6.
Bornstein RF: Reconceptualizing personality pathology in DSM-5: limitations in evidence for eliminating dependent personality disorder and other DSM-IV syndromes. J Pers Disord 2011;25:235-247.
7.
Clarkin JF, Huprich SK: Do DSM-5 personality disorder proposals meet criteria for clinical utility? J Pers Disord 2011;25:192-205.
8.
Shedler J, Beck A, Fonagy P, et al: Personality disorders in DSM-5. Am J Psychiatry 2010;167:1026-1028.
9.
Ronningstam E: Narcissistic personality disorder in DSM-V - in support of retaining a significant diagnosis. J Pers Disord 2011;25:248-259.
10.
Widiger TA, Costa PT: Integrating normal and abnormal personality structure: the five-factor model. J Pers 2012;80:1471-1506.
11.
Widiger TA: The DSM-5 dimensional model of personality disorder: rationale and empirical support. J Pers Disord 2011;25:222-234.
12.
Miller JD, Morse JQ, Nolf K, Stepp SD, Pilkonis PA: Can DSM-IV borderline personality disorder be diagnosed via dimensional personality traits? Implications for the DSM-5 personality disorder proposal. J Abnorm Psychol 2012;121:944-950.
13.
Skodol AE, Clark LA, Bender DS, et al: Proposed changes in personality and personality disorder assessment and diagnosis for DSM-5 part I: description and rationale. Pers Disord 2011;2:4-22.
14.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV, ed 4. Washington, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
15.
Westen D, Shedler J: Revising and assessing axis II, part I: developing a clinically and empirically valid assessment method. Am J Psychiatry 1999;156:258-272.
16.
Westen D, Shedler J, Bradley B, DeFife JA: An empirically derived taxonomy for personality diagnosis: bridging science and practice in conceptualizing personality. Am J Psychiatry 2012;169:273-284.
17.
Shedler J, Westen D: The Shedler-Westen assessment procedure (SWAP): making personality diagnosis clinically meaningful. J Pers Assess 2007;89:41-55.
18.
Westen D, DeFife JA, Bradley B, Hilsenroth MJ: Prototype personality diagnosis in clinical practice: a viable alternative for DSM-5 and ICD-11. Prof Psychol Res Pract 2010;41:482-487.
19.
Shedler J: Integrating clinical and empirical perspectives on personality: the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP); in Huprich S (ed): Personality Disorders: Toward Theoretical and Empirical Integration in Diagnosis and Assessment. Washington, American Psychological Association, 2015, pp 225-252.
20.
PDM Task Force: Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual: (PDM). Silver Spring, Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations, 2006.
21.
Gordon RM: Reactions to the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM) by psychodynamic, CBT and other non-psychodynamic psychologists. Issues Psychoanal Psychol 2009;31:55-62.
22.
Morey LC, Skodol AE, Oldham JM: Clinician judgments of clinical utility: a comparison of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and the alternative model for DSM-5 personality disorders. J Abnorm Psychol 2014;123:398-405.
23.
Cassin SE, Singer AR, Dobson KS, Altmaier EM: Professional interests and career aspirations of graduate students in professional psychology: an exploratory survey. Train Educ Prof Psychol 2007;1:26-37.
24.
Norcross JC: Prescriptive matching in psychotherapy: an introduction. Psychotherapy 1991;28:439-443.
25.
Section III: Specific Personality Disorders; in American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5). Washington, United States: American Psychiatric Association, 2013, pp 761-781.
26.
Shedler J, Westen D: Dimensions of personality pathology: an alternative to the five-factor model. Am J Psychiatry 2004;161:1743-1754.
27.
Gordon RM, Stoffey RW: Operationalizing the psychodynamic diagnostic manual: a preliminary study of the psychodiagnostic chart. Bull Menninger Clin 2014;78:1-15.
28.
Westen D: Divergences between clinical and research methods for assessing personality disorders: implications for research and the evolution of axis II. Am J Psychiatry 1997;154:895-903.
29.
Section III: trait model; in American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5). Washington, American Psychiatric Association, 2013.
30.
Perlman MR, McCarrick SM, Anderson T, Levy KN: Psychotherapy theoretical orientations of clinical psychology graduate programs and graduate student characteristics (oral presentation). Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration Conference, Baltimore, May 2015.
31.
Nelson S: The forest and the trees: a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of student preferences for four methods of personality disorder diagnosis. Personal Disord, in press.
32.
Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, Erlbaum, 1988.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.