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  • Citing articles on Web of Science (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

HAROLD A. RASHKIS, MD, PhD; SYLVIA FARNHAM DIGGORY, PhD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1963;9(6):552-558.

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

Clinical evaluation of mental patients is largely based on their verbalizations. Although some patients, while very sick, may develop a pseudoinsight or speak pseudorationally, we do not ordinarily see the converse of this: patients who are clinically well but cannot express themselves reasonably. Accordingly, if we were to set up a scheme for evaluating patients' statements with regard to increasing connectedness or relevance of ideas, we would expect a good, though not a perfect, correlation between improvement on our scale and actual clinical improvement.

When we try to make prognostic statements based on such a scale, however, we may run into difficulties, for we may find that patients who enter a hospital making no verbal sense at all go on to a speedy remission, while thoroughly rational-sounding patients may never budge from their admission-level plateau, or may actually seem to get worse. This is . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PHILADELPHIA

From the Department of Clinical Research, Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute (Drs. Rashkis and Diggory), and the Department of Psychiatry, Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania (Dr. Rashkis).

Footnotes
Submitted for publication April 3, 1963.

The Hidden Figures Test, Punched Holes Test, and PMA Space Test.2

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