Functional analysis and response covariation in the assessment of personality disorders: a reply to Staats and to Bissett and Hayes

In this reply to Bissett and Hayes (this issue) and Staats (this issue) we address critical comments in response to our initial proposal and highlight points of agreement. The overall thesis of our reply is that classificatio n schemes based on nomothetic response covariation, such as DSM, complement , but do not substitute for, an idiographically-based functional analysis a nd behavioral assessment. In the context of our reply, we address the follo wing primary concerns raised by Bissett, Hayes, and Staats: (a) we are esse ntially proposing the melding of two theoretically incongruent approaches, and that such a melding is inherently not viable or useful; (b) the behavio r analytic approach cannot account for personality or psychological constru cts; and (c) that categories based on topography do not have demonstrated t reatment utility. We also discuss points of agreement with our respondents: (d) a theoretically-based descriptive classification system is required to ultimately advance clinical science, (e) the DSM personality disorder clas sification system, to remain viable, needs a stronger empirical base; and ( f) that alternatives to DSM classification that more strongly emphasize beh avioral principles are in need of development. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Lt d. All rights reserved.