Adelphi University.
Personal Disord. 2019 May;10(3):220-223. doi: 10.1037/per0000336.
In their incisive and engaging commentaries Drs. Lilienfeld and Widiger make a number of cogent points regarding how personality pathology should be conceptualized and assessed, both arguing strongly that dimensional models are superior to categorical personality disorder frameworks. In this response, I describe areas of convergence and divergence between my perspective and those of my colleagues and argue that-current ascendance of dimensional models notwithstanding-the trait-type dialectic will continue into the future as empirical evidence and clinical experience illuminate previously unrecognized strengths and limitations of each approach. To foster productive collaboration and constructive dialogue, I offer suggestions regarding studies that allow for rigorous comparison of the construct validity and clinical utility of categorical and dimensional perspectives on personality pathology, in the laboratory and in vivo. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
在他们富有见地且引人入胜的评论中，Lilienfeld 博士和 Widiger 博士就人格病理学应该如何被概念化和评估提出了一些有力的观点，他们都强烈主张维度模型优于分类人格障碍框架。在本回应中，我描述了我与同事们的观点之间的趋同和分歧之处，并认为，尽管目前维度模型占据主导地位，但特质类型的辩证关系将在未来继续存在，因为实证证据和临床经验将揭示每种方法以前未被认识到的优势和局限性。为了促进富有成效的合作和建设性的对话，我提出了一些建议，即进行研究，以便在实验室和现实生活中严格比较人格病理学的分类和维度观点的构念效度和临床实用性。（PsycINFO 数据库记录（c）2019 APA，保留所有权利）。
