• R F Farmer and R O Nelson-Gray.
• Idaho State University, USA.
• Behav Res Ther. 1999 Apr 1;37(4):385-94.

AbstractIn this reply to Bissett and Hayes (this issue) and Staats (this issue) we address critical comments in response to our initial proposal and highlight points of agreement. The overall thesis of our reply is that classification schemes based on nomothetic response covariation, such as DSM, complement, but do not substitute for, an idiographically-based functional analysis and behavioral assessment. In the context of our reply, we address the following primary concerns raised by Bissett, Hayes, and Staats: (a) we are essentially proposing the melding of two theoretically incongruent approaches, and that such a melding is inherently not viable or useful; (b) the behavior analytic approach cannot account for personality or psychological constructs; and (c) that categories based on topography do not have demonstrated treatment utility. We also discuss points of agreement with our respondents: (d) a theoretically-based descriptive classification system is required to ultimately advance clinical science, (e) the DSM personality disorder classification system, to remain viable, needs a stronger empirical base; and (f) that alternatives to DSM classification that more strongly emphasize behavioral principles are in need of development.

7 keywords...

hide…