Rationally selected Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, , 1993Exner, , 2003 Rorschach variables and suitability for psychodynamic psychotherapy were investigated in four studies with different designs. The participants comprised three clinical samples (n = 52, 25, and 69) of patients applying for and/or selected for dynamic psychotherapy. With few exceptions the CS variables were the same in the studies, and in all the studies the Rorschach was independent of clinical ratings/assessments and/or selection of patients for treatment. The first study dealt with the relation between 17 rationally selected CS variables and suitability for psychotherapy as represented by ratings of Dynamic Capacity and Ego Strength and by selection of therapy applicants for psychotherapy. The second and third studies concerned CS score differences between groups of patients differing in suitability for dynamic psychotherapy. In the second study, differences for CS variables were predicted for three groups of dynamic psychotherapy patients with mixed diagnoses. In the third study, CS score differences between two groups, differing in suitability but similar in comprising personality disordered patients, were predicted and tested. In the fourth study, correlations were predicted between 18 pre-therapy CS variables and patient post-therapy satisfaction with therapy and also with therapist post-therapy ratings of their patients' suitability for dynamic therapy.For the four studies taken together, positive results were obtained for EA, FC, the D Score, Blends, Zf, F%, MQo, and AG. The results for m, SumT, WSUM6, X-%, S, and FrrF were negative, whereas the results for YFY, FD, COP, and PER were too weak to permit interpretation.The main limitation of the research in this thesis is the lack of psychometric data concerning the clinical ratings whereas the strength is the ecological validity. The results are positive for some of the CS variables selected, mainly concerning control and cognition but also touching upon emotional integration and interpersonal forcefulness. The usefulness of the CS in psychotherapy assessment may be enhanced if only those CS variables that are found valid for the purpose are used and general personality descriptions are avoided.

Few studies have concerned the relation between Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 1991, 1993, 2003) Rorschach variables, and suitability for psychodynamic psychotherapy. In this study, I predicted correlations between 17 rationally selected CS variables and suitability for psychotherapy as represented by ratings of Dynamic Capacity and Ego Strength. The participants were 52 psychotherapy applicants between 20 and 57 years old. The ratings were performed after clinical interviews and decisions concerning selection of the applicants. EA, FC, Blends, Zf, and MQo correlated positively and YFY negatively with Dynamic Capacity ratings, whereas EA, FC, and Blends correlated positively and YFY and F% negatively with Ego Strength ratings. EA, FC, YFY, Zf, MQo, and F% also differed between the applicants selected and those not selected for psychotherapy. Considering earlier research, the results for Blends, Zf, and F% were interpreted as replications and for MQo and EA as showing satisfactory consistency.

Dans les deux études présentées ici, nous avons fait des prédictions conceptuelles sur l'aptitude de patients à suivre une psychothérapie d'orientation dynamique à partir de variables Rorschach. Dans la première étude, nous avons sélectionné rationnellement des variables prédictives Rorschach (SI) (Exner, 1991, 1993) pour trois groupes de patients de divers diagnostics (n = 30, 43, 25). Les groupes ont été comparés à l'aide de l'ANOVA non paramétrique de Kruskall-Wallis puis nous avons procédé à des comparaisons par paire entre les groupes avec le test U de Mann-Whitney. Dans l'étude II, on a prédit des différences de scores entre deux désordres de personnalité (n = 35 et 25) et testés à l'aide du U de Mann-Whitney. Les résultats de ces deux études on confirmé les prédictions pour le EA, les blends, l'activité d'organisation (Zf), le mouvement humain de forme ordinaire (Mo), la dimension formelle (FD), le mouvement agressif (AG) et de coopération (COP) comme de bonne indication pour une psychothérapie d'orientation dynamique. De même, nous avons trouvé comme indicateurs négatifs le pourcentage des réponses purement formelles (F%), un score D > 0 et un indice d'incompétence sociale positif (CDI > 3). Les prédictions portant sur la couleur dominée par le forme (FC), l'estompage de diffusion non dominé par la forme (YF, Y), le mouvement d'objet (m), la somme pondérée des cotations spéciales critiques (WSum6), la distorsion formelle (X–%), l'espace blanc (S), les reflets (Fr, rF) et les réponses personnalisées (PER) n'ont pas été confirmées.

The Stockholm Comparative Study of Psychotherapy (COMPASS) is a longitudinal naturalistic project that aims to develop methods for quality assurance of psychotherapy and to elucidate research questions concerning factors mediating efficacy of various types of psychotherapy. The project involves the coordinated collection of data at psychiatric clinics serving three separate catchment areas of metropolitan Stockholm. Apart from the main project a number of sub-projects are planned with the aim of illuminating specific methodological issues.COMPASS is unique in terms of utilizing the Rorschach as one of the key instruments for assessment and evaluation of psychotherapy. About 400 patients will be included, and long-term evaluation of treatment results is also planned. The project therefore offers the opportunity of a thorough evaluation of the usefulness of the Rorschach method for assessment and evaluation of psychotherapy.The present paper summarizes the background and the design of COMPASS. Some preliminary data are presented, describing personality characteristics in a group of patients applying for psychotherapy. Data from a sub-project concerning the validation of clinical assessments as compared to Rorschach data are also presented. 30This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

This is a remarkable and thought-provoking book, readable not only for those working in the field of forensic psychiatry/psychology, but also for everyone interested in the history of psychiatry and psychiatric/psychological assessment, and how society has dealt with criminal behavior related to mental disorders.The focus is on the development in the United Kingdom, from the eighteenth century to the present, but the course of events in the United States, Germany, and France is also elucidated.The book gives an engaging and informative picture of the development of psychiatry through interaction with the wider culture, an interaction grounded in the public interest in psychological processes. Both more optimistic and more pessimistic views of insanity have got social and cultural expression.The description of the development of concepts that have been applied to mental disorder related to criminal behavior, from moral insanity until today's antisocial personality disorder, is rich in detail. The reader is invited to follow how ideas about a possible non-manifest insanity related to criminal acts took shape at the Central Criminal Court in England and Wales (the Old Bailey) during the eighteenth century.During the first half of the nineteenth century, psychiatry reached a strong position in the court system, offering expert assessment of moral insanity and of moral treatment.However, during the second half of the century, after the case of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843, this position grew weaker. M'Naghten, intending to murder the British Prime Minister Robert Peel, mistakenly shot Peel's secretary, and was charged with the murder of the secretary. The verdict, not guilty on the

No abstract

No abstract

This is an important book of high quality. The goal formulated by the editors is: "To strengthen the links between evidence-based multimethod assessment and clinical practice by providing systematic reviews of how to incorporate diverse assessment techniques in the laboratory, clinic, and consulting room."This ambition makes the book valuable for different groups of readers: students, clinicians, and researchers. For the clinician looking for an up-to-date presentation of assessment methods that can be used in combination, the book is a rich source of information. The reader wanting to learn more about the pros and cons of different clinical assessment methods will find insightful and informative discussions in several chapters. For researchers in clinical assessment the book is also informative: different authors describe the status concerning research in their fields. Moreover, the integrative ambition also makes the book suitable for readers with different theoretical backgrounds.The three parts of the book cover the major domains of clinical assessment. The section "Personality and Individual Differences" throws light on the fundamental value of personality science in clinical assessment. The section "Psychopathology and Resilience" is not organized around discrete diagnostic categories, but instead around evidence-based dimensions of personality. Finally, in the "Clinical Management" section, aspects not covered in initial assessments are in focus.The invited authors were instructed to discuss assessment methods for key constructs in their field, review empirical evidence supporting