Steven K. Huprich

Advances in the assessment of object relations in the 1990s

In this paper, we review the empirical publications from the 1990s on the assessment of object relations (OR). Twelve different measures are referenced. Major findings of studies, conclusions, and evaluations of each measure are provided. In general, it was found that the most recent empirical literature has compared OR across diagnostic groups or evaluated therapy process and outcome by the quality of ones OR. Current strengths and limitations of the extant OR literature are provided, along with methodological recommendations to expand the utility and validity of OR assessment.

Recognizing, assessing, and intervening with problems of professional competence.

THIS ARTICLE WAS AUTHORED by members of a workgroup on students with competence problems associated with the Council of Chairs of Training Councils, which is affiliated with the Education Directorate of the American Psychological Association. Nadine J. Kaslow and Nancy J. Rubin took primary responsibility for crafting this manuscript. Nadine J. Kaslow is the workgroup chair. To the extent possible, the remaining authors are listed in the order of their contributions: Nadine J. Kaslow, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine; Nancy J. Rubin, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, University of Alabama School of Medicine—Tuscaloosa Campus; Linda Forrest, Counseling Psychology and Human Services, University of Oregon; Nancy S. Elman, Psychology in Education, University of Pittsburgh; Barbara A. Van Horne, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Sue C. Jacobs, Applied Health and Educational Psychology, Oklahoma State University; Stephen K. Huprich, Department of Psychology, Eastern Michigan University; Sherry A. Benton, Counseling Services, Kansas State University; Victor F. Pantesco, Department of Clinical Psychology, Antioch University New England; Stephen J. Dollinger, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University; Catherine L. Grus, Education Directorate, American Psychological Services; Stephen H. Behnke, Ethics Office, American Psychological Association; David S. Shen Miller, Counseling Psychology and Human Services, University of Oregon; Craig N. Shealy, Department of Graduate Psychology, James Madison University; Laurie B. Mintz, Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri-Columbia; Rebecca Schwartz-Mette, Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-Columbia; Kristi Van Sickle, Department of Psychology, James A. Haley VA Hospital in Tampa; Beverly E. Thorn, Department of Psychology, University of Alabama. CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Nadine J. Kaslow, Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Grady Hospital, 80 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303. E-mail: nkaslow@emory.edu Professional Psychology: Research and Practice Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 2007, Vol. 38, No. 5, 479–492 0735-7028/07/

Depressive personality disorder: Theoretical issues, clinical findings, and future research questions

12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.38.5.479

An Overview of Issues Related to Categorical and Dimensional Models of Personality Disorder Assessment

This article reviews the theoretical construct of depressive personality disorder and its related research. The history of depressive personality disorder is reviewed. It is concluded that differing theories converge on similar descriptions and mechanisms of development for the depressive personality disorder. Substantial empirical work supports the diagnostic distinctiveness of depressive personality disorder in clinical populations. Past and current assessment devices for assessing depressive personality disorder are also described along with their psychometric properties and clinical value. Suggestions are made for future research on the etiology and validity of the depressive personality disorder construct in order to facilitate deciding whether or not to include depressive personality disorder in future editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Do DSM-5 PerSonality DiSorDer ProPoSalS Meet Criteria for CliniCal Utility?

Despite long-standing efforts to improve the current diagnostic system for Axis II, problems remain with the categorical conceptualization of personality disorders (PDs). Due in part to these problems, interest has developed in dimensional models of PD classification. In this article, we discuss four issues relevant to categorical vs. dimensional assessment of PDs: (a) problems with self-reports in PD patients, (b) methodological issues in behavioral and clinician assessment of PDs, (c) challenges that arise when dimensional models are applied to patient and nonpatient samples, and (d) clinical implications of categorical and dimensional PD models. We suggest that researchers and clinicians address these concerns to avoid implementing a new PD assessment model that—although different from the current system—would otherwise remain fraught with difficulties.

Self-RepoRt Methodology iS inSufficient foR iMpRoving the ASSeSSMent And clASSificAtion of AxiS ii peRSonAlity diSoRdeRS

The Work Group for the DSM-5 personality disorders has submitted their proposal to the professional community. In this paper, we consider the proposal in light of its ability to meet criteria for clinical utility as proposed by First and colleagues (2004). While the Work Groups proposal has addressed some of these concerns, we conclude that there remain several unanswered problems with how the proposal will improve the clinical utility of personality disorders section of the DSM-5. Though these concerns can be addressed to some extent in the field trials, it is incumbent upon the Work Group and clinical researchers to attend carefully to these issues so that shortcomings of previous diagnostic manuals are not repeated in the future.

The Depressive Personality Disorder Inventory : An initial examination of its psychometric properties

Current approaches to the assessment and classification of personality disorders (PDs) rely almost exclusively on self-report methodology. In this paper, we document the many difficulties with self-reports, including limitations in their accuracy, the confounding effect of mood state, and problems with the selection and retention of factors in factor analytic approaches to self-report questionnaires. We also discuss the role of implicit processes in self-reports, with special attention directed to the phenomenon of priming and its effect on outcome. To rectify these issues, we suggest a transtheoretical, multimethod, multimodal approach to personality pathology assessment and diagnosis, which utilizes the richness of prototypes and empirical findings on PD categories and pathologies.

Late Adolescent Nonsuicidal Self-Injury: The Roles of Coping Style, Self-Esteem, and Personality Pathology

A 41-item questionnaire was developed to assess cognitions that are representative of the DSM-IV conceptualization of depressive personality disorder. Eighty-nine undergraduates from a private, Midwestern, Catholic university were administered the Depressive Personality Disorder Inventory (DPDI), the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS), and the Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire-Revised (ATQ-R). Results indicated that the DPDI is internally consistent, assesses a single construct, and has construct validity relative to the DAS and ATQ-R. Given these promising initial findings, continued use and refinement of the DPDI are warranted.

The Depressive Personality Disorder Inventory and Its Relationship to Quality of Life, Hopefulness, and Optimism

This study examined the relationship between late adolescent nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) and coping style, self-esteem, and personality pathology. Participants were 302 late adolescent (18-19-year-old) college students who completed questionnaires on self-esteem, coping style, personality disorder symptoms, and NSSI. Participants who engaged in NSSI reported more personality pathology, more maladaptive coping styles, less rational coping, and lower self-esteem than did non self-harming participants. As hypothesized, total NSSI correlated with several personality disorders, emotional coping style, and inversely related to self-esteem and adaptive coping styles. Regression equations tested several mediation models to determine whether self-esteem or coping style mediates the relationship between personality disorder symptoms and NSSI. Emotional coping and self-esteem each fully mediated the relationship between various personality disorders and NSSI in the anticipated direction. Results also indicate self-esteem, rational, detached, and emotional coping partially mediate the relationship between several personality disorders and NSSI.

The Overlap of Depressive Personality Disorder and Dysthymia, Reconsidered

The construct validity of the Depressive Personality Disorder Inventory (DPDI; Huprich, Margrett, Barthelemy, & Fine, 1996) was examined through its relationship to the constructs of hope, optimism, and quality of life (QOL). Three hundred thirty-two undergraduate students were administered the DPDI and measures of the aforementioned constructs. As predicted, the DPDI negatively correlated with all measures. Individuals classified with a depressive personality disorder had significantly higher scores on measures of hope, optimism, and QOL compared to a control group. Stepwise regression analysis indicated that optimism, QOL, and one component of hope significantly predicted DPDI scores, although more variance was accounted for in women than men. These findings are explained in light of Carver and Scheiers (2000) explanation of optimism and its relationship to hope. In sum, it appears that the construct validity of the DPDI is supported within an undergraduate sample.