BackgroundThe present study was conducted to determine the differential profile of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and avoidant personality disorder (APD) based on dimensional diagnosis in criterion B of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (DSM-5-AMPD) in a college sample.MethodsSamples of this cross-sectional study included 320 (23.08 ± 2.66 years; 57% female) college students in western Iran during February 2015 to December 2017. Liebowitz-social anxiety scale, PID-5, SCID-II, SCID-II-SQ and diagnostic interview for SAD were the tools. The data were analysed using Pearson correlation and multiple linear regression analysis.ResultsForty-three and 38 participants met criteria for SAD alone and APD, respectively. Five main domains of PID-5 could explain 29% and 54% of the variance of SAD and APD, respectively. Facets of negative affect, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism could explain 25% versus 43%, 26% versus 54%, 7% versus 27%, 21% versus 41%, 13% versus 30% of the variance of SAD and APD, respectively.ConclusionSAD and APD probably refer to two distinct mental states having prominent anxiety, emotional instability, and interpersonal pattern of avoidance and detachment of challenge. SAD is a simple form of mental disturbances with anxiety in its core features; although, APD is possibly referring to more complicated psychopathology.
Objectives Intensive short‐term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP) requires the technique of challenge to defenses when treating resistant patients. As the technique of challenge is difficult for some therapists to practice, it leads us to question whether challenge can be replaced by clarification of defenses without losing treatment effectiveness. This study compared ISTDP with two different technical emphases while treating social anxiety disorder (SAD). Method Forty‐two subjects with DSM‐5 SAD were randomly assigned to either a waitlist control, 10 sessions of ISTDP with the use of challenge or 10 sessions of ISTDP without the use of challenge. Results ISTDP led to significant, sustained symptom reduction on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS‐SR) compared with the control group. There were no significant outcome differences between standard ISTDP and ISTDP where challenge was restricted. Conclusion ISTDP is efficacious for SAD. ISTDP may be effective for SAD without the use of challenge elements.
This research examined the efficacy of intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP) in the treatment of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and compared the therapeutic outcomes of ISTDP when feeling focus or defense work is emphasized. A three-group randomized design with 6-month follow-up was used. Forty-one subjects were selected among volunteer college students diagnosed with SAD. They were assigned randomly into three groups; 14 cases to feeling-focused ISTDP (FF-ISTDP) group, 14 cases to defense-focused ISTDP (DF-ISTDP) group, and 13 cases to a control group. All subjects were evaluated at pretest, posttest, and six-month follow-up through clinical interviewing using DSM-5 criteria for SAD along with the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. Each experimental group had a course of 8 to 10 sessions of ISTDP treatment. Analysis of variance showed that ISTDP is an effective treatment for SAD compared with a control group. No outcome differences were found between FF-ISTDP and DF-ISTDP in treating SAD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.