You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Research in personality assessment, especially when the theoretical assumptions about the organizational structures are based on a theory as complex as psychoanalysis, has been a formidable undertaking. The difficulties exist at two extremes. On the one hand, the in-depth case study method retains the richness and complexity of the clinical data in its descriptive report, but fails to take into account concerns for issues of reliability and validity. Theoretical constructs, such as those of psychoanalytic metapsychology, are difficult to translate into observable behavior, and agreement about the meaning of any particular piece of behavior is often subject to many differing interpretations, even when detailed clinical material is presented. In addition, the understanding of what exactly we mean when we use abstract psychoanalytic terms is itself often open to dispute. On the other hand, studies which have tried to rigorously apply the methods of natural science have tended to lose not only the richness of the clinical description, but often the meaning of the material. In their attempt to attain reliability, complex concepts are often translated into simplistic terms, which while they may be reliably observable, are far distant from the meaning of the original concept. It is, therefore, with great pleasure, and much appreciation of the difficulty involved, that