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.
While the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10, World Health Organization, 1990) basically classify mental disorders according to manifest symptoms, the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manuals 1 and 2 (PDM Task Force, 2006; Lingiardi and McWilliams, in press) (PDM) are taxonomies based on the dynamics of the whole person. The PDM considers, in addition to manifest symptoms: personality organization (healthy, neurotic, borderline, psychotic)2, personality disorders or syndromes (e.g., schizoid, histrionic, narcissistic, etc.), and mental functioning (e.g., capacity for intimacy, defensive level, self-observing capacity, etc.). The aim of this categorization is to better inform psychotherapy. However, since the PDM is associated with a psychodynamic orientation, it is uncertain if the typical practitioner would accept a taxonomy not based on manifest symptoms.
In order to assess this, we asked a sample of mental health practitioners from a wide range of educational backgrounds and theoretical orientations. The participants filled out a demographic survey, rated a recent client on the Psychodiagnostic Chart (PDC) (Gordon and Bornstein, 2012), and then rated the clinical usefulness of each diagnostic taxon (1 = not at all helpful, 7 = very helpful).
Robert M. Gordon and Robert F. Bornstein developed the PDC as an operationalized guide to the adult diagnostic section of the PDM. Gordon and Stoffey (2014) found excellent construct validity and excellent two-week test-retest reliability. The PDC was recently updated for the PDM2 (Lingiardi and McWilliams, in press).3
The volunteers (n = 438) were recruited from 14 workshops on the DSM-5, ICD-10, and PDM. In this sample, 46% held doctoral degrees, 67% were female, and 60% were age 50 or older. Primary orientations were 41% family systems, humanistic/existential or eclectic, and