Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Psychiatrische Klinik, Vossstrasse 4, Heidelberg, Germany.
Psychopathology. 2010;43(4):268-74. doi: 10.1159/000315126. Epub 2010 May 29.
The establishment of criteriological diagnostic systems since the 1980s has increased the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. On the other hand, the limits of this approach for clinicians and researchers are becoming increasingly apparent. In particular, the assessment of subjective experience is nearly excluded on the theoretical level and undervalued on the pragmatic level, with detrimental consequences for the validity of psychiatric diagnosis, empirical research and therapeutic purposes. To correct this unfavourable development, three major approaches to the assessment of mental illness should be equally taken into account: (1) the positivistic, objectifying or 3rd-person approach as endorsed by DSM-IV and ICD-10, focusing mainly on observable behavioural symptoms; (2) the phenomenological, subject-oriented or 1st-person approach, focusing on the patient's self-experience and exploring its basic structures, and (3) the hermeneutic, intersubjective or 2nd-person approach, mainly aiming at the co-construction of narratives and interpretations regarding the patient's self-concept, relationships and conflicts. These three approaches will be compared regarding their respective values for psychopathological description, diagnosis, research and therapeutic purposes.
自 20 世纪 80 年代以来,标准诊断系统的确立提高了精神病学诊断的可靠性。另一方面,这种方法对于临床医生和研究人员的局限性越来越明显。特别是,主观体验的评估在理论层面上几乎被排除在外,在实践层面上被低估,这对精神病学诊断、实证研究和治疗目的的有效性产生了不利影响。为了纠正这种不利的发展,应该平等考虑评估精神疾病的三种主要方法:(1)DSM-IV 和 ICD-10 所支持的实证主义、客观主义或第三人称方法,主要关注可观察的行为症状;(2)现象学、以主体为导向或第一人称方法,关注患者的自我体验,并探索其基本结构;(3)解释学、主体间性或第二人称方法,主要旨在共同构建关于患者自我概念、人际关系和冲突的叙述和解释。将从病理描述、诊断、研究和治疗目的的角度对这三种方法进行比较。