Perry J C, Augusto F, Cooper S H
Department of Psychiatry, Cambridge Hospital, MA.
Psychiatry. 1989 Aug;52(3):289-301. doi: 10.1080/00332747.1989.11024451.
Recent years have seen increasing interest in devising methods of studying psychodynamic phenomena. These efforts have had confront difficulties, first, in specifying the data, the observation language, and rules of inference for psychodynamic propositions, and second, in determining the reliability and validity of the measures used. Given how "fuzzy" traditional psychodynamic concepts are, it is no wonder that psychodynamic clinicians from Freud onward have achieved more success in generating new hypotheses than in testing their validity. As Reichenbach (1938) has observed, science requires that discovery be followed by systematic validation of all new propositions, regardless of their degree of popular acceptance. At the core of efforts to study psychodynamics have been methods to study ego functioning (Bellak and Goldsmith 1984), defense mechanisms (Perry and Copper 1988), and psychodynamic conflicts. This paper reports on the reliability of the Idiographic Conflict Formulation (ICF), a guided method for formulating an individual's psychodynamic conflicts.
近年来，人们对设计研究心理动力现象的方法越来越感兴趣。这些努力面临着困难，首先，在确定心理动力命题的数据、观察语言和推理规则方面，其次，在确定所使用测量方法的可靠性和有效性方面。鉴于传统心理动力概念是如此“模糊”，难怪从弗洛伊德时代起，心理动力临床医生在提出新假设方面比在检验其有效性方面取得了更大的成功。正如赖兴巴赫（1938年）所观察到的，科学要求在发现之后对所有新命题进行系统验证，无论其被普遍接受的程度如何。研究心理动力学的努力核心一直是研究自我功能（贝拉科和戈德史密斯，1984年）、防御机制（佩里和库珀，1988年）以及心理动力冲突的方法。本文报告了个性化冲突表述法（ICF）的可靠性，这是一种用于表述个体心理动力冲突的引导方法。
