دانلود کتاب راهنمای آکسفورد در مورد مدل‌های ابعادی آسیب‌شناسی روانی

The way we diagnose mental health problems affects nearly every aspect of clinical science and practice. What we include in official nomenclatures determines what the field, and society at large, deem pathological, and what is worth studying and treating. There are reverberations in legal, economic, and public health sectors, as well. Nosology, the classification of disorder, has always been controversial in the mental health field. Nevertheless, since at least the 1980s, there has been one dominant model, which assigns people to diagnostic categories defined by lists of observable signs and symptoms. This categorical system is embodied in two official taxonomies, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The constituent diagnostic categories, such as generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, have been for many years the common language for clinical communication, study design, and dissemination of research findings. Today, however, we are in an era of paradigm shift. Alternative diagnostic rubrics have real traction, including support from major governmental and funding bodies. Most of them challenge the assumption that mental health problems are categorically separate from one another and from mental health. Despite this common theme, the alternatives are diverse in terms of motivation, structure, and application. They represent a wide array of intellectual and professional backgrounds, and, politically, they tend to be promoted by different camps. Often these alternatives are portrayed as competitors, even if they are generally compatible substantively. This Handbook brings together classification systems that represent dimensional models of psychopathology, a (re)emerging paradigm for diagnosis. Broadly speaking, dimensional diagnosis involves conceptualizing mental health problems as existing on one or more continua of psychopathology. Dimensional approaches posit that the information relevant to diagnosing, explaining, and treating psychopathology is distributed continuously in the population. In other words, individual differences in mental health are a matter of degree, not kind. In contrast, traditional nosologies, descendants of early medical classifications, generally assume that people are either members or non-members of a diagnostic category, with no gray area in between. In this volume, our goal is to organize current scholarship on the conceptual and empirical bases for dimensional perspectives on psychopathology. We contrast dimensional and categorical views, and we compare the diverse dimensional systems to one another, probing for conceptual compatibility versus divergence. We cover aspects of the systems’ theoretical background, structure, research support and applications, and clinical utility. Ultimately, we hope that bringing these perspectives together can advance our thinking about how dimensional systems can improve diagnosis; accumulation of knowledge of the origins, correlates, and treatment of psychopathology; and intervention and prevention strategies for mental health problems.