Rendering clinical psychology an evidence-based scientific discipline: a case study

Area of Science:

• Clinical Psychology
• Psychopathology
• Neuroscience

Background:

• Neuroscience and clinical psychology, as separate disciplines, have not adequately explained mental disorders.
• Evidence from neurobiology, clinical psychology, and psychopathology lacks sufficient validity, reliability, and utility.
• Effective trans-disciplinary connections between these fields are underdeveloped.

Purpose of the Study:

• To illustrate the critical role of clinical psychology in understanding and explaining mental disorders.
• To scrutinize clinical psychology methods using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) as an example.
• To demonstrate the subjective nature of clinical judgment and assessment tools.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of clinical psychology methods, specifically the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).
• Comparison of cognitive content in clinical interviews and psychological rating scales.
• Examination of self-report items, subjective symptoms, and observed behaviors in clinical assessment.

Main Results:

• Clinical interviews and psychological rating scales share similar cognitive content, differing mainly in structure.
• Both patient narratives and clinician observations (signs) are subjective and part of an inter-subjective system.
• The cognitive content of clinical judgment is inherently subjective.

Conclusions:

• Clinical psychology methods, including interviews and rating scales, are fundamentally subjective.
• The reliance on inter-subjective clinician agreement in assessments highlights the subjective nature of clinical judgment.
• Diagnostic protocols, such as those in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, may not represent independent measurements due to inherent subjectivity.