Graduate School of Applied & Professional Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, USA.
J Pers Assess. 2012;94(6):563-70. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2012.711790. Epub 2012 Aug 10.
The author argues that research in the idiographic tradition is more conducive to effective clinical work than the uncritical adoption of specific "evidence-based therapies" for discrete symptomatic disorders. She views pressures on therapists to adopt evidence-based therapies without consideration of individual differences and personal subjectivity as the misapplication of a research paradigm to the clinical situation. Reviewing some recent empirical work on individuality and therapeutic process, she critiques efforts to formulate personality diagnosis on the basis of externally observable traits without attention to internal experience, and she contends that intrapsychic themes account for personality differences more powerfully than traits, even when traits are construed dimensionally.
作者认为，与不加批判地采用特定的“循证疗法”治疗离散症状障碍相比，具体发生学传统的研究更有助于有效的临床工作。她认为，治疗师在不考虑个体差异和个人主观性的情况下采用循证疗法的压力是将研究范式错误地应用于临床情况。在回顾一些关于个性和治疗过程的最新实证工作时，她批评了基于外部可观察特征而不关注内部经验来制定人格诊断的努力，她认为，即使从维度上理解特质，内心主题也比特质更能说明人格差异。
