0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Article |

Progress on Case Formulation

Paul Crits-Christoph; Mary Beth Connolly
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1995;52(8):639-641. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950200029006.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

READERS of the Archives may be unfamiliar with some of the recent advances in methods for psychodynamic formulation. Horowitz and colleagues1 continue to make important contributions to this developing field, and therefore we hope to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of their article.

BACKGROUND  Some background on the history of research on psychodynamic formulation may help to put the work by Horowitz and colleagues in context. Many earlier attempts2 to assess the agreement of clinicians in arriving at a psychodynamic formulation resulted in poor interjudge reliability. This failure to achieve adequate agreement was likely a function of three major issues: (1) There is not one psychodynamic theory but many theories, often quite distinct and often only loosely articulated, thus leading to different clinicians formulating dynamic issues in discrepant ways based on their discrepant theories. (2) Even among clinicians of the same theoretical persuasion, an approach that allows judges

Topics

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign in

Create a free personal account to sign up for alerts, share articles, and more.

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();