Assessing Psychodynamic Conflicts: I. Reliability of the Idiographic Conflict Formulation Method

39Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Recent years have seen increasing interest in devising methods of studying psychodynamic phenomena. These efforts have had to 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 Cooper 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. © 1989 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Perry, J. C., Augusto, F., & Cooper, S. H. (1989). Assessing Psychodynamic Conflicts: I. Reliability of the Idiographic Conflict Formulation Method. Psychiatry (New York), 52(3), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1521/00332747.1989.11024451

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free