This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Herbert G. Kleber, MD; Frank H. Gawin, MD
Yale University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry 34 Park St New Haven, CT 06519

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1987;44(3):298.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Brower and Paredes suggest that our three-phase conceptualization of cocaine abstinence phenomena may require revision because (1) naturalistic methods limit the reliability and validity of our findings, (2) physical signs and symptoms are not described, and (3) we disregard previous convention regarding the term withdrawal, since we apply it to protracted psychologic abstinence phenomenon (phase 2: withdrawal), such as anhedonia, rather than to immediate postbinge symptoms (phase 1: crash) that are accompanied by physical distress. They suggest that our reconceptualization should be merged with the existing conceptualization and that both phase 1 and phase 2 should be termed withdrawal. They bring up three disparate issues.

First, naturalistic methods do limit the reliability, validity, and generalizability of our findings. The second paragraph of our "Comment" section already states this. Once naturalistic observation defines a framework, highly structured investigations can proceed. If our report has value, it is in its contribution . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?