From symptoms to subjective and bodily experiences: the contribution of the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM-2) to diagnosis and treatment monitoring in eating disorders

PURPOSE

Atheoretical and descriptive conceptualizations of eating disorders (EDs) have faced substantial criticism due to their limited ability to assess patients' subjective characteristics and experiences, as needed to determine the most appropriate treatment options. The present article provides an overview of the clinical and empirical literature supporting the potential contribution of the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM-2) to both diagnostic assessment and treatment monitoring.

METHODS

Following a discussion of the most relevant shortcomings of current diagnostic models of EDs and a description of the rationale and structure of the PDM-2, evidence supporting the core PDM-2 dimensions of ED patients' subjective experiences (i.e., affective states, cognitive processes, relational patterns, somatic/bodily experiences and states) are examined, alongside their relevance to ED diagnosis and treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, the reviewed studies support the diagnostic importance of these patterns of subjective experiences in EDs, highlighting their potential role as either predisposing or maintaining factors to target in psychotherapy. A growing body of multidisciplinary evidence also shows that bodily and somatic experiences are central to the diagnosis and clinical management of ED patients. Moreover, there is evidence that a PDM-based assessment may enable closer monitoring of patient progress during treatment, with regard to both subjective experiences and symptom patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that current diagnostic frameworks for EDs would benefit from the addition of a person-centered perspective that considers not only symptoms, but also patients' full range of functioning-including their deep and surface-level emotional, cognitive, interpersonal, and social patterns-to improve patient-tailored interventions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, narrative review.

How Much Training Do We Need? Assessing the Validity and Interrater Reliability of the PDM-2's Psychodiagnostic Chart among Less Experienced Clinicians

The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual - Second Edition (PDM-2) has emerging evidence supporting its clinical utility, yet one of the main limitations remains the conjecture that considerable training and experience is required. It also remains unclear how the PDM-2 framework compares with current DSM measures of personality pathology such as the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS). The aim of the present study is to examine these issues by testing whether less clinically experienced second year doctoral psychology students are able to reliably assess patients' level of personality pathology using the PDM-2's Psychodiagnostic Chart (PDC-2), and to investigate the convergence between the PDC-2 and the LPFS. Results showed adequate inter-rater reliability for both of the main PDC-2 axes, with 52% of the variance for the overall personality organization (P-Axis) rating, and 29% of the overall M-Axis score being due to rater consensus. Reliability of individual ratings ranged from fair to excellent for the overall scores on both axes (ICC = 0.59 to .90). Results also showed that student evaluations were valid, with the latter's assessment of the patients' level of personality organization converging both with the experts' rating of the PDC-2 as well as the LPFS. Implications for clinical training are discussed.

Advancement in the child attachment interview and the child and adolescent reflective functioning scale using a PDM-2 framework: case reports

The Child Attachment Interview (CAI) is a well-established semi-structured interview, widely used to identify attachment representations in middle childhood and adolescence. The application of the Child and Adolescent Reflective Functioning Scale (CRFS) to CAI narratives allows for an assessment of child mentalization, considered a strong predictor of attachment security. The 2^nd edition of the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM-2) includes CAI and CRFS as valid and reliable assessment measures in order to assess the dominion of the Mental Functioning axis. The aim of the present paper is to investigate the informative power of CAI and CRFS for the overall understanding of mental functioning and personality in a PDM-2 framework. The present report includes the discussion of two clinical cases of school-aged children in applying the Psychodiagnostic Chart-Second Edition (PDC-2) to the CAI transcript. The first case concerns a young male, aged 10, suffering from Oppositional-Provocative Disorder (externalizing disorder), while the second case concerns a young female, aged 15, suffering from Somatic Symptoms Disorder (internalizing disorder). PDC-2 for children and adolescents was used. Data from the scoring of CAI and CRFS were combined with a systematic evaluation of the qualitative contents emerging from CAI transcripts. A detailed analysis suggests that both the CAI and CRFS are useful attachment-oriented measures, able to explore child’s mental states, and together with the application of PDC-2 they provide an essential contribution in the understanding of developmental psychopathology. Implications of this innovative approach for clinical assessment, treatment design, and interventions are further discussed.

Psychodiagnostic Chart-Child (PDC-C): a valid and clinically sensitive diagnostic tool for patient-tailored intervention planning

The reliable clinical-diagnostic evaluation of child patients is crucial. The present research sought to examine the validity of the Psychodiagnostic Chart-Child (PDC-C) in assessing children’s mental functioning and personality organization, according to the framework of the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual, Second Edition (PDM-2). A sample of 209 clinicians assessed 209 children (aged 4-11 years) who had been in their care between 2-12 months, using the PDC-C. Each clinician also completed a clinical questionnaire to provide demographic information, the Child Behavior Checklist to evaluate children’s behavioral problems and social competences, and the Childhood Personality Assessment Q-Sort measure to assess children’s emerging personality patterns. The findings suggest that the PDC-C is a valid diagnostic tool that considers children’s full range of functioning. Moreover, the measure has good sensitivity and appears clinically useful in differentiating between certain clinical populations according to psychological characteristics. The PDC-C could promote more accurate assessment during childhood and inform the development of individualized therapies. One of the advantages of the tool is its ability to capture individual variations in child functioning (illuminating strengths and psychological vulnerabilities), even within children in the same diagnostic group. Of note, additional research is needed to establish the utility of PDC-C ratings in predicting clinically relevant constructs and to monitor the processes and outcomes of interventions.

Inter-rater Reliability and Construct Validity of the Lerner Defense Scale in Clinical and Non-clinical Groups

The current study investigated the inter-rater reliability and the construct validity of the Rorschach Lerner Defense Scale (LDS). In particular, it aimed to explore the inter-rater reliability, analyzing the most frequent coding mistakes in an attempt to improve the coding guidelines, and to investigate the ability of the scale to distinguish between individuals with neurotic-level and borderline-level personality organization, according to the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual-2 (PDM-2), and non-clinical subjects. Eighty clinical subjects and 80 non-clinical ones participated in the study. Among the clinical subjects, 40 have borderline-level personality organization and 40 have neurotic-level personality organization. Non-clinical subjects were drawn from an archival dataset of non-clinical individuals who previously participated in a Rorschach normative study. The LDS showed substantial inter-rater reliability; however, guidelines could be improved, specifically with regard to the threshold for coding Devaluation and Idealization at level 1. Furthermore, more examples should be included in the manual about the coding of Projective Identification and Denial. The LDS distinguished borderline-level subjects from both the non-clinical and neurotic groups with regard to Devaluation and Projective Identification, with borderline-level personality organization subjects reporting higher scores than either of the two other groups. Only the Denial scale discriminated between the non-clinical and neurotic group, with the latter reporting higher scores of high-level Denial.

Comparative Content Analysis of Self-Report Scales for Level of Personality Functioning

Content validity analyses of eight self-report instruments for assessing severity of personality disorder (PD), also known as Level of Personality Functioning (LPF), were conducted using the conceptual scheme of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD; APA, 2013). The item contents of these eight inventories were characterized for the LPF constructs of Identity (ID), Self-Direction (SD), Empathy (EM), and Intimacy (IN) along with the pathological personality trait domains of Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. Severity of pathology (SV) reflected in item content was also rated. Raters demonstrated robust agreement for AMPD and SV constructs across instruments. Similarity between instrument AMPD construct profiles was quantified by intraclass correlations (ICC). Results showed the instruments were generally similar in AMPD-construct coverage, but some important differences emerged. The subscales of the instruments also were characterized for the degree to which they reflect the four LPF (ID, SD, EM, IN) domain constructs. Collectively, these content validity comparisons clarify the equivalence of instruments for AMPD constructs and the relative proportions of construct coverage within instrument subscales. These results can inform future research with LPF self-report instruments and guide clinicians in selecting an LPF-related instrument for use in practice.