Dimensionale Ansätze in der Diagnostik und Behandlung psychischer Erkrankungen

Die Einführung des deskriptiven kategorialen Ansatzes zur Klassifikation psychischer Störungen wurde als Fortschritt für Diagnosesicherheit und Theorieunabhängigkeit betrachtet – neueste Studien zeigen jedoch seine Grenzen auf. Teil 1 beleuchtet die theoretischen Grundlagen von Persönlichkeitsfunktion und maladaptiven Traits (Dimensionale Ansätze in DSM-5 und ICD-11), Teil 2 deren praktische Anwendung in Diagnostik und Therapie.

Schlüsselwörter

dimensionaler Ansatz - kategorialer Ansatz - Persönlichkeitsstörungen - Alternatives Modell der Persönlichkeitsstörungen - Funktionsniveaus der Persönlichkeit - Hierarchische Taxonomie der Psychopathologie - HiTOP - Persönlichkeitsfunktion - Mentalisierung - Superspektren der Psychopathologie

• Literatur

• 1 First MB, Rebello TJ, Keeley J. et al. Do mental health professionals use diagnostic classifications the way we think they do? A global survey. World Psych 2018; 17: 187-195
• 2 Ruggero CJ, Kotov R, Hopwood CJ. et al. Integrating the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice. J Consult Clin Psychol 2019; 87: 1069-1084
• 3 Sheppes G, Suri G, Gross JJ. Emotion regulation and psychopathology. Ann Rev Clin Psychol 2015; 11: 379-405
• 4 Barlow DH, Farchione TJ, Bullis JR. et al. The unified protocol for transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders compared with diagnosis-specific protocols for anxiety disorders: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psy 2017; 74: 875
• 5 Girard JM, Wright AGC, Beeney JE. et al. Interpersonal problems across levels of the psychopathology hierarchy. Compreh Psy 2017; 79: 53-69
• 6 Stapel S, Brakemeier E-L. Die Kraft von zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungen: CBASP bei chronischen Depressionen. Aerztl Psychother 2024; 19: 39-47
• 7 Guhn A, Köhler S, Brakemeier E-L. Kiesler-Kreis-Training: Manual zur Behandlung interpersoneller Probleme. Mit E-Book inside und Arbeitsmaterial. Weinheim: Beltz; 2019
• 8 Verschueren M, Claes L, Gandhi A. et al. Identity and psychopathology: Bridging developmental and clinical research. Emerg Adult 2020; 8: 319-332
• 9 Bender DS, Morey LC, Skodol AE. Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM–5, part I: A review of theory and methods. J Personal Ass 2011; 93: 332-346
• 10 Abel T. Handbuch der Objektbeziehungspsychologie. Gießen: Psychosozial; 2023
• 11 Kernberg OF. Borderline Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Organization: Psychopathology and Psychotherapy. In: Magnavita JJ. , Hrsg. Handbook of Personality Disorders: Theory and Practice. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2004: 92-119
• 12 Hörz-Sagstetter S, Caligor E, Preti E. et al. Clinician-guided assessment of personality using the structural interview and the Structured Interview of Personality Organization (STIPO). J Personal Ass 2018; 100: 30-42
• 13 Blatt SJ. Polarities of experience: Relatedness and self-definition in personality development, psychopathology, and the therapeutic process. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; 2008
• 14 Huprich SK, Auerbach JS, Porcerelli JH. et al. Sidney Blatt’s object relations inventory: Contributions and future directions. J Personal Ass 2016; 98: 30-43
• 15 Hilsenroth MJ, Stein M, Pinsker J. Social Cognition and Object Relations Scale: Global Method (SCORS–G). Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript; 2004.
• 16 Mullin ASJ, Hilsenroth MJ, Gold J. et al. Changes in object relations over the course of psychodynamic psychotherapy. Clin Psychol Psychother 2017; 24: 501-511
• 17 Richardson LA, Porcerelli JH, Dauphin VB. et al. The use of the social cognition and object relations scale in a primary care setting. J Personal Ass 2018; 100: 156-165
• 18 Azim HF, Piper WE, Segal PM. et al. The quality of object relations scale. Bull Menninger Clin 1991; 55: 323
• 19 Piper WE, Ogrodniczuk JS, Joyce AS. Quality of object relations as a moderator of the relationship between pattern of alliance and outcome in short-term individual psychotherapy. J Personal Ass 2004; 83: 345-356
• 20 Fonagy P, Geregely G, Jurist EL. et al. Affect Regulation, Mentalization, and the Development of the Self. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis; 2018
• 21 Luyten P, Campbell C, Moser M. et al. The role of mentalizing in psychological interventions in adults: Systematic review and recommendations for future research. Clin Psychol Rev 2024; 102380
• 22 Fleck L, Fuchs A, Moehler E. et al. Maternal bonding impairment predicts personality disorder features in adolescence: The moderating role of child temperament and sex. Personal Dis Theory Res Treatm 2021;
• 23 Hyde LW, Waller R, Trentacosta CJ. et al. Heritable and nonheritable pathways to early callous-unemotional behaviors. Am J Psy 2016; 173: 903-910
• 24 Stern DN. Die Lebenserfahrung des Säuglings: Mit einer neuen Einleitung des Autors. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta; 2010
• 25 Leichsenring F, Rabung S. Long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy in complex mental disorders: Update of a meta-analysis. Br J Psy 2011; 199: 15-22
• 26 Giesen-Bloo J, Van Dyck R, Spinhoven P. et al. Outpatient psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder: Randomized trial of schema-focused therapy vs transference-focused psychotherapy. Arch Gen Psy 2006; 63: 649-658
• 27 John OP. History, measurement, and conceptual elaboration of the Big-Five trait taxonomy: The paradigm matures. In: John OP, Robins RW. , Hrsg. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2021: 35-82
• 28 Clark LA, Simms L, Wu K. et al. Manual for the Schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive Personality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1993
• 29 Morey LC. Personality assessment inventory. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1991
• 30 Livesley W, Jackson D. Manual for the dimensional assessment of personality pathology. Basic questionnaire. Port Huron: Sigma; 2009
• 31 Widiger TA, Simonsen E. Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: Finding a common ground. J Personal Dis 2005; 19: 110-130
• 32 Clark LA, Watson D. The trait model of the DSM–5 alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD): A structural review. Personal Dis Theory Res Treatm 2022; 13: 328-336
• 33 Tyrer P, Mulder R, Kim Y-R. et al. The development of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: An amalgam of science, pragmatism, and politics. Ann Rev Clin Psychol 2019; 15: 481-502
• 34 Zimmermann J, Kerber A, Rek K. et al. A brief but comprehensive review of research on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. Curr Psy Report 2019; 21: 92
• 35 Zimmermann J, Müller S, Bach B. et al. A common metric for self-reported severity of personality disorder. Psychopathology 2020; 53: 168-178
• 36 Haehner P, Sleep CE, Miller JD. et al. The longitudinal (co)development of personality traits and the level of personality functioning after negative life events. Clin Psychol Sci 2023;
• 37 Garcia DJ, Waugh MH, Skadberg RM. et al. Deconstructing criterion a of the alternative model for personality disorders. Personal Dis Theory Res Treatm 2021; 12: 320-330
• 38 Shedler J, Westen D. Refining the measurement of axis II: A q-sort procedure for assessing personality pathology. Assessment 1998; 5: 333-353