-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: All classification systems of psychopathology use hierarchical categories. The purpose of the two studies in this article was to test whether clinicians think hierarchically about mental disorders.
Seventy six clinicians were asked to sort 67 diagnostic categories into groups using different instruction sets, either to make progressively larger and smaller groups of diagnoses (Study 1) or to place similar groups next to each other (Study 1 and Study 2).
Clinicians' sortings of mental disorders had a hierarchical structure regardless of the methodology, profession, expertise, and instructional set used.
Given that all modern diagnostic systems have been hierarchical, it is important to know that clinicians' thinking is also hierarchical.
Journal of Clinical Psychology 04/2012; 68(6):620-30. · 2.12 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purposes of this article was to examine the rates at which Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP) doctoral programs provided full disclosure information on their respective Web sites. Additionally, consistency of full disclosure data was examined using internship match rates, and summary statistics are provided for a normative basis. Of 153 programs, at least some data were located for 111 programs. Large discrepancies were found when comparing internship match statistics reported by programs with match statistics listed by Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC). The mean profile of a CUDCP program includes about 160 applicants per year, of which the program admits eight new graduate students. These eight new graduate students have a GRE verbal score of 590, a quantitative GRE score of 650, an undergraduate GPA of 3.63, and take 6.5 years to complete their doctoral degree (including internship). These programs reported an average match rate of 93%. Given the Committee on Accreditation's (CoA's) new mandate for reporting program disclosure variables, the article concludes with recommendations for how best to report these data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Training and Education in Professional Psychology 04/2008; 2(2):117-122. · 1.58 Impact Factor
-
Psychometrika 02/1989; 54(1):9-23. · 1.77 Impact Factor
-
Roger Blashfield
Psychometrika 02/1977; 42(3):429-431. · 1.77 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Since 1980, personality disorders have been conceptualized as a qualitatively different kind of mental disorder and placed on their own "axis." In this study, clinicians were given 67 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition diagnoses and were asked to discard unfamiliar diagnoses, make groups of similar diagnoses, place the most similar groups next to each other, and describe the overall structure of their taxonomies. Results showed that clinicians were more familiar with the personality disorders than with some kinds of Axis I disorders (eg, sleep disorders). Clinicians tended not to keep the personality disorders in one group, although they often kept the cluster groupings together. Cluster groupings were often placed with comorbid Axis I disorders. These data suggest that clinicians did not see the personality disorders as qualitatively different from the Axis I disorders.
Comprehensive Psychiatry 47(6):496-502. · 2.26 Impact Factor
