English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A big chunk of my early years in graduate school was spent learning about psychopa­ thology and the diagnostic systems that categorize these. We learned about prevalence, contributing factors, how to assess and differentially diagnose individuals with psycho­ pathological problems. When I started my clinical work, I was shocked to encounter that the reality of clinical practice was far from the information I learned in my psy­ chopathology courses. Almost all clients, would not fit properly under one diagnosis, comorbidity was the norm, and I discovered that assigning a diagnosis was not par­ ticularly helpful for my case conceptualizations and choice of treatment. Since those days, even though I have seen hundreds of patients, I am still looking for the classic book example of a panic patient. As for depression, it is fascinating to me that I can give the same diagnosis to a patient who presents with loss of appetite, low energy, excessive sleepiness, and catatonic-like symptoms, as to a patient who presents with concentration difficulties, increased appetite, difficulty sleeping, and restlessness. How does our training in a topographical approach to psychological suffering with the search for syndromes (collection of signs and symptoms) prepare us for clinical practice and ef­ fective intervention? What are our diagnostic systems useful for? Interestingly, even the task force on DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) acknowledges the shortfall of this approach in “uncovering etiologies”, recommending intervention strategies, and have gone as far as to propose that a “paradigm shift may need to occur” (Kupfer, First, & Regier, 2002). Beyond assessment and diagnosis, in the realm of treatment, psychological interven­ tion training is driven by theories, traditions, or schools of thought (e.g., cognitive-be­ havioral, humanistic, psychodynamic). In training and education, we focus on teaching students’ tools, techniques, and approaches, almost like cookbooks, ignoring that the

Shifting our perspective for the future of assessment and intervention science