The Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM; Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations [APO], 2006) was developed to add a contrasting, person-centered perspective to the conceptualization and diagnosis of psychological dysfunction in traditional diagnostic systems (i.e., the International Classification of Diseases, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). In addition to considering symptom patterns (Axis S), the PDM—and its recently updated version, PDM-2 (Lingiardi & McWilliams, 2017)—enables clinicians to describe overall level of personality organization, specific personality patterns and syndromes (Axis P), and the patient’s mental functioning in a broad array of domains, including strengths and vulnerabilities (Axis M). This article discusses scale development, structure, format, scoring, and interpretation of the Psychodiagnostic Chart (PDC; Gordon & Bornstein, 2012, 2015), an instrument for coding PDM/PDM-2 data. We evaluate the psychometric soundness of the PDC with respect to internal consistency, interrater and retest reliability, and relations to external criteria. Following a review of evidence bearing on the construct validity of the PDC and clinical utility of constructs assessed by the measure, we discuss the instrument’s strengths and limitations, and offer suggestions for continued work in this area.

中文翻译：

---

构建心理诊断图表的有效性：人格组织、人格综合症、心理功能和症状的跨诊断测量。

心理动力学诊断手册（PDM；精神分析组织联盟 [APO]，2006 年）旨在为传统诊断系统（即国际疾病分类、精神疾病诊断与统计手册）。除了考虑症状模式（轴 S）之外，PDM 及其最近更新的版本 PDM-2（Lingiardi & McWilliams，2017）使临床医生能够描述人格组织的整体水平、特定的人格模式和综合征（轴 P） ，以及患者在广泛领域的心理功能，包括优势和弱点（轴 M）。本文讨论了量表的发展、结构、格式、评分、和解释心理诊断图表 (PDC; Gordon & Bornstein, 2012, 2015)，一种用于编码 PDM/PDM-2 数据的工具。我们评估 PDC 在内部一致性、交互者和重新测试的可靠性以及与外部标准的关系方面的心理测量稳健性。在审查有关 PDC 的结构有效性和通过该措施评估的结构的临床效用的证据之后，我们讨论了该工具的优势和局限性，并为该领域的继续工作提供了建议。