1963
DOI: 10.1016/s0010-440x(63)80051-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic dream studies: Clinical judgment and objective measurements of ego strength

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1965
1965
2003
2003

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Fourth, theoretically based rating scales are more problematic than empirical rating scales because it is difficult to translate complex theoretical concepts into matters of degree. For example, in Sheppard’s (1963, 1969) scale for “ego integration” derived from psychoanalytic theory, the “body image” portion calls for a coding of “8” if there is a “bizarre deformity,” a “4” if there is a mutilation or critical injury, a “2” for a mild illness, and a “1” if there is no mention of ill health. But distinctions between bizarre deformities and mutilations may not be easily made.…”
Section: Rating Scales For Dream Contentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fourth, theoretically based rating scales are more problematic than empirical rating scales because it is difficult to translate complex theoretical concepts into matters of degree. For example, in Sheppard’s (1963, 1969) scale for “ego integration” derived from psychoanalytic theory, the “body image” portion calls for a coding of “8” if there is a “bizarre deformity,” a “4” if there is a mutilation or critical injury, a “2” for a mild illness, and a “1” if there is no mention of ill health. But distinctions between bizarre deformities and mutilations may not be easily made.…”
Section: Rating Scales For Dream Contentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was differentiated whether threat was directed towards the dreamer or towards others in the dream. The dreamer's tendency to "distancing" was taken into consideration by Sheppard and Saul (1958) and Sheppard (1963). It was suggested that the more the dreamer portrayed his or her impulses, urges, drives and other motivating forces, as not being part of himself or herself, the more he or she put them at a distance from his or her ego.…”
Section: Degree Of "Distancing"mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various ego functions in the manifest dream were studied (Sheppard & Saul, 1958), and an ego rating system was supposed to reflect different degrees of ego awareness. The ego rating system demonstrated an advantage over clinical judgement (Sheppard, 1963). Persons who showed differences in the perceptual attitude of flexibility and rigidity as estimated from the Rorschach test, also differed along this dimension in the contents of their manifest dreams (Eidusion, 1959).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Saul & Sheppard, 1956& Sheppard, , 1958Sheppard, 1963;Sheppard & Karon, 1964) concerned with the construction and testing of psychoanalytically-derived scales for the measurement of emotional factors in manifest dreams. In particular, it is concerned with the degree co which two raters are able to agree on the scores they assign to various dream components, i.e., the reliability of the scoring, and the degree to which their reliability varies as a function of experience and training.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%