Classification of the Behavior Disorders

Phillips, Laura W.; Draguns, Juris G.

doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.22.020171.002311

Cited by 43 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pecking away at people who use traditional diagnostic syndromes has been a preoccupation among psychologists with a behavior-modifi cation or social-learning orientation towards psychochange (120). Much of the time spent in this business has been devoted to exorcising such hobgoblins as traits.…”

Section: For Those Who Have Wandered Into This Chapter From Across Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective Diagnostic Tests and Measures

Goldberg¹

1974

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: For Those Who Have Wandered Into This Chapter From Across Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective Diagnostic Tests and Measures

Goldberg¹

1974

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although this method for categorical models has been available for many years, it has not been frequently applied in empirical diagnostic research, and is not even mentioned in otherwise good reviews of the literature (Achenbach, 1978;Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978;Phillips & Draguns, 1971). It is used even less frequently in personnel research or in educational settings, where the purpose may be to define a group that is to get special additional attention, and where the need for accurate selection is great.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A large amount of work has been done using the dimensional model. Phillips and Draguns (1971) reviewed many studies which fall under this research procedure.…”

Section: Types Of Diagnostic Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evaluation of Diagnostic Models

Cudeck

1982

South African Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are two kinds of diagnostic models used in psychological research. A categorical model is used most commonly, but dimensional models have also been studied (Skinner, 1979;Strauss, 1973). When developing or using a model, it is important to determine when the model is appropriate for a particular setting. Unfortunately, methods for carrying out this kind of evaluation are only applied infrequently, particularly with categorical models. This paper reviews the importance of evaluating diagnostic models, and empasizes a Bayesian method for evaluating categorical models. An illustration of the method with previously published data is given.S. Atr. J. Psychol. 1982, 12: 61 -64 Daar word twee soorte diagnostiese modelle in psigologiese navorsing gebruik. 'n Kategoriese model word die meeste gebruik, alhoewel dimensionele modelle ook bestudeer is (Skinner, 1979;Strauss, 1973). Wanneer 'n model ontwikkel of gebruik word, is dit belangrik om te bepaal of dit 'n geskikte model is vir die spesifieke situasie en/of omstandighede. Ongelukkig word metodes om hierdie soort evaluering te doen, veral by kategoriese model Ie, seide toegepas. In hierdie artikel word 'n oorsig van die belangrikheid van evaluering van diagnostiese modelle gegee en word 'n Bayesiese metode vir evaluering van kategoriese mode lie beklemtoon. Die metode word ge"illustreer met behulp van reeds gepubliseerde data.

show abstract

“…On the one hand, supporters have argued that classifications of mental disorders are vital for communication among health care professionals, as a guide for differential treatment of patients, and as a mechanism for systematizing what is known about the etiology of disorders (Spitzer, Sheehy, & Endicott, 1977). In contrast, others have attacked traditional classification systems as being associated with the medical model, as being unreliable, and as leading to self-fulfilling prophecies through the labeling process (Philips & Draguns, 1971).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing the impact of cluster analysis research: The case of psychiatric classification.

Skinner¹,

Blashfield²

1982

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent publication of a new classification of mental disorders (DSM-III) by the American Psychiatric Association has fueled an interest among psychologists in developing alternative classifications. A popular approach is to use multivariate methods known as cluster analysis to identify clinical syndromes. Empirical clustering techniques offer potential for making diagnoses more objective, reliable, and predictive of outcome from differential treatment. However, problems exist at the interface between this statistical technology and psychiatric classification. To date, cluster-analytic studies have had limited impact on psychiatric nomenclature, and clinicians have not found the cluster-derived syndromes to be relevant to everyday practice. This article discusses reasons that underlie the lack of impact and describes directions for upgrading both the scientific quality and clinical acceptance of cluster-analysis research. In particular, more emphasis must be placed on fostering the clinical use of empirically derived classifications.The authors thank Herman Friedman and Maurice Lorr for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

show abstract

Classification of the Behavior Disorders

Cited by 43 publications

References 0 publications

Objective Diagnostic Tests and Measures

Objective Diagnostic Tests and Measures

The Evaluation of Diagnostic Models

Increasing the impact of cluster analysis research: The case of psychiatric classification.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About