The psychodynamic diagnosis in a contemporary perspective
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
The most widespread diagnostic classification manuals such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD; see World Health Organization, WHO, 1992) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; see American Psychiatric Association, APA, 2000), in their various editions, are based on a descriptive, atheoretical and substantially symptom-behavior oriented approach to psychopathology. This approach has provoked different reactions in dynamic training clinicians: disinterest, dissatisfaction, distrust, hostility. The recent appearance of evaluation procedures and diagnostic manuals of psychodynamic inspiration, but well anchored to empirical research, such as the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 (SWAP-200; Westen, Shedler, 1999a,b; Westen, Shedler, Lingiardi, 2003) and the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM; PDM Task Force, 2006) has promoted a "cultural revolution" in the community of mental health professionals, enhancing an approach to diagnosis closer to clinical practice and more compatible with psychotherapeutic interventions. Where diagnosis is not only a label, but also an evaluation process capable of bringing the symptom back into the context of personality and patient-friendly treatment.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.