China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Psychoanalytic assessment in private practice
Published in Jed A. Yalof, Anthony D. Bram, Psychoanalytic Assessment Applications for Different Settings, 2020
In terms of self-report measures, I included (a) the Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2nd Edition (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) as a broadband measure to learn about Joshua’s more conscious experience of unusual thinking and sensory-perceptual experiences, as well as his style of emotional regulation, his sense of self, and orientation to relationships; (b) the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; A.T. Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) as a quick-to-administer and score screen of his mood and possible suicidal thinking, in case the latter needed more urgent attention; (c) the Prodromal Questionnaire-16 (PQ-16; Ising et al, 2012) for focused assessment of possible psychotic symptoms; (d) the Trauma History Questionnaire (THQ; Hooper, Stockton, Krupnick, & Green, 2011) and Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R; J.G. Beck et al., 2008) to determine to what extent the tragic early loss of his father continues to impact his functioning; the Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS; Ghaemi, Miller, Berv, Klugman, Rosenquist, & Pies, 2005) to help determine to what extent possible emotional dysregulation involves mania or hypomania; and (e) the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNES; Leary, 1983) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS; Mattick & Clarke, 1998) to clarify whether his reported history of eschewing interpersonal interaction is consistent with the fear of negative evaluation and avoidance associated with social anxiety. Although not originally included in the battery, as a result of what Joshua shared with me later in the evaluation (to be described below), I added the Social Media Disorders Scale (SMDS; van den Eijnden, Lemmens, & Valkenburg, 2016) to better clarify the nature, severity, and function of his avoidant behavior.
The Rapid Mood Screener (RMS): a novel and pragmatic screener for bipolar I disorder
Published in Current Medical Research and Opinion, 2021
Roger S. McIntyre, Mehul D. Patel, Prakash S. Masand, Amanda Harrington, Patrick Gillard, Susan L. McElroy, Kate Sullivan, C. Brendan Montano, T. Michelle Brown, Lauren Nelson, Rakesh Jain
Although other self-reported bipolar disorder screening tools are available, reliance on screening for manic symptoms only or length may be obstacles to use in the clinic. For example, the MDQ, which was also administered in the RMS observational study, consists of 15 total items, and screens for manic symptoms, manic symptoms clusters, and level of impairment to identify bipolar I or II disorder. For a positive screen, 7 of 13 MDQ manic symptom items must be endorsed, and in 2 additional items, patients must affirm that several of these symptoms have occurred during the same time period and caused at least moderate impairment. In contrast, the RMS consists of 6 items and requires an endorsement of 4 or more of the items to identify patients who may potentially have bipolar I disorder. Other available self-report bipolar screening tools of note include the 48-item Hypomanic Personality Scale (HPS) [23], the 32-item Mania/Hypomanic Checklist (HCL-32) [24], the Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS) [25], and the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR) [26]. Obvious disadvantages that may limit the usefulness of the HPS and the HCL-32 in clinical practice include length and reliance on hypomanic/manic symptoms. Further, although the BSDS (19 items in paragraph form) and MOODS-SR (161 items) include depressive symptoms, they too are long and potentially more complicated than a simple checklist because of their scoring and formats. While the General Behavior Inventory (GBI) also screens for both depressive and manic symptoms [27–29] and its psychometric properties have been estimated in clinical and non-clinical samples [27,30,31], its utility is also restricted by length (52–73 items) and multiple versions that provide inconsistent cut-off scores for positive screening, which limits its generalizability.