This study examined defensive functioning in adults entering open-ended dynamic psychotherapy and determined whether defenses predict retention at 1 year. Beginning at about the fifth session, 14 adults with personality and or depressive disorders entering open-ended dynamic psychotherapy had five therapy sessions audiotaped. The sessions were rated according to the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales, quantitative method. Interrater reliability of overall defensive functioning (ODF) and the number of defenses used per session were intraclass R = .85 and .83, respectively, whereas that of seven defense levels yielded a median of .625 (range .52 to .80). Stability of ODF across the five sessions was intraclass R = .48. The 11 subjects with personality disorders (PDs) used predominantly lower immature (49.3%) and neurotic (40.8%) level defenses. Subjects with borderline PD had significantly lower ODF than those with other PD types. Higher ODF was associated with remaining in treatment at 1 year, although this was confounded with a higher frequency of weekly sessions. Quantitative assessment of defenses demonstrated fair to excellent reliability and indicated that in the short term approximately half of defensive functioning reflects a stable repertoire, whereas the remaining variation may be due to occasion and error. PDs and especially BPD are characterized by a predominance of lower defenses. Higher defensive functioning was associated with twice-weekly sessions and retention in therapy at 1 year. In therapy, adjusting technique to the patient's defenses may improve retention and outcome.

This study empirically supported Antonovsky's predictions that a person's Sense of Coherence is implicated in coping with life stresses and psychological distress. Sense of Coherence scales accounted for as much variance in criterion measures of Life Events stressors, Depression, and Anxiety as did traditional locus of control and social support predictor measures. Sense of Coherence scales emerged as useful additions for studies of personality characteristics implicated in personal reactions to distressing life events.

Despite widespread use of the Rorschach for the study of defense mechanisms, few recent Rorschach scales have been developed for the study of defensive functioning. We critically review previous empirical research and describe the Rorschach Defense scales. These scales provide criteria for rating both lower level defense mechanisms, such as splitting and primitive idealization, as well as higher level defenses, such as intellectualization and isolation. The scales utilize a broad range of content including all Rorschach responses, associative content, and verbalization of the tester-patient relationship. Data on interrater reliability and preliminary validity are presented.

We examined the validity of the construct of overall defensive functioning and its discrimination from standard diagnostic assessments. Within a multisite field trial, patients received intake diagnostic interviews by clinicians who made standard axis I through V diagnoses, then rated defense mechanisms using the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS). Patients filled out self-report measures of distress and defenses, the SCL-90-R, and Defense Style Questionnaire (DSQ). Overall defensive functioning (ODF) scales were derived from both the DMRS and the DSQ. Overlap between clinical and self-report ratings of defenses was modest. By two different methods of factor analysis, followed by confirmatory factor analysis, clinical ratings of ODF were clearly discriminable from axis I, axis II personality disorders, current and usual global functioning, and subjective distress. ODF measured by the DSQ was not clearly discriminated from subjective distress ratings, consistent with the hypothesis that subjective distress may distort conscious derivatives of actual defensive processes. The DSQ alone probably should not be considered as a substitute for observer-rated assessment of defensive functioning, although further study of the issue is warranted.

Following critiques that the DSM multiaxial system lacks psychodynamic information useful for treatment, an axis for defense mechanisms was developed for DSM-IV, including up to 7 individual defenses from a glossary of 27, and 3 predominant defense levels from a list of 7. We tested the feasibility, reliability, and discriminability of the proposed axis. Clinician and psychiatric resident volunteers were trained at two U.S. and one Norwegian sites. After conducting initial interviews on 107 patients, they rated the DSM-III-R and defense axes, as did a second blind rater. Median kappa reliabilities were .42 (individual defenses), and .47 (defense levels). A summary measure, Overall Defensive Functioning (ODF), had similar reliability to current GAF (IR .68 vs. .62), similar 1-month stability (.75 vs. .78), but greater 6-month stability (.51 vs. .17). Independent of Axis III, ODF had small to moderate associations with other Axes and symptoms. Our findings indicate that the defense axis is a feasible, acceptably reliable, and nonredundant addition to DSM-IV, which may prove useful for planning and conducting treatment.

Recent years have seen increasing interest in devising methods of studying psychodynamic phenomena. These efforts have had confront difficulties, first, in specifying the data, the observation language, and rules of inference for psychodynamic propositions, and second, in determining the reliability and validity of the measures used. Given how "fuzzy" traditional psychodynamic concepts are, it is no wonder that psychodynamic clinicians from Freud onward have achieved more success in generating new hypotheses than in testing their validity. As Reichenbach (1938) has observed, science requires that discovery be followed by systematic validation of all new propositions, regardless of their degree of popular acceptance. At the core of efforts to study psychodynamics have been methods to study ego functioning (Bellak and Goldsmith 1984), defense mechanisms (Perry and Copper 1988), and psychodynamic conflicts. This paper reports on the reliability of the Idiographic Conflict Formulation (ICF), a guided method for formulating an individual's psychodynamic conflicts.

No abstract

No abstract