Hofmann Stefan G, Hayes Steven C
Boston University.
University of Nevada, Reno.
Clin Psychol Sci. 2019 Jan;7(1):63-67. doi: 10.1177/2167702618805513. Epub 2018 Nov 2.
In this rejoinder, we discuss the commonalities and differences of the commentaries to our target article. Each commentary agreed with our basic message that intervention science needs to move from the DSM-governed protocols-for-syndrome approach to process-based treatments. Functional analysis has been a guiding principle since the early days of behavior therapy, but lost its dominance with the ruse of the latent disease model of psychiatry. This model gave rise to disorder-specific treatments with limited benefit to patients and science. We now have the tools and expertise to study human complexity grounded in an understanding of processes of change drawn from and fully applicable to the psychological level of analysis.
在这篇回应文章中，我们讨论了针对我们目标文章的评论的异同。每篇评论都认同我们的基本观点，即干预科学需要从受《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》（DSM）支配的综合征治疗方案方法转向基于过程的治疗方法。自行为疗法早期以来，功能分析一直是指导原则，但随着精神病学潜在疾病模型的兴起，它失去了主导地位。这种模型导致了针对特定疾病的治疗方法，对患者和科学的益处有限。我们现在拥有工具和专业知识，可以基于对从心理分析层面得出并完全适用于该层面的变化过程的理解，来研究人类的复杂性。
