Monday, 23 April 2012

Are Psychologists All Mad?

A fun little study from 2008 looked at rates of self-reported mental illness in mental health professionals: Psychologists' And Social Workers' Self-Descriptions Using DSM-IV Psychopathology

The authors did an anonymous survey of clinical psychologists and social workers in Israel.  They found that
The sample of 128 professionals included 63 psychologists and 65 social workers. The presence of Axis I traits (i.e. mental illness) was reported by 81.2%, the three most frequent traits being mood, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorder. Axis II traits (personality disorders) were reported by 73.4% of subjects, the three most frequent conditions being narcissistic, avoidant, and obsessive-compulsive personality traits.
Take a look:
There were few differences between the two professions although for what it's worth, social workers were more likely to report psychosis and substance abuse problems, while clinical psychologists were more narcisstic, with a full 40% of them admitting to having narcisstic traits. On that note the authors (perhaps unwisely) comment:
While speculative, it may be suggested that narcissistic traits include some important factors in motivating individuals to choose to enter the mental health care profession. In a psychotherapeutic relationship, the  ability to influence and understand another person's psyche may include features of  "narcissistic gratification".
Ouch!

The problem with all this, though, is that it's not clear what reporting "DSM-IV psychopathology" means; people rated their symptoms on a 5 point scale where 1 = "no evidence of the disorder" and 5 is "greatest severity". Most of the reported symptoms were low in severity, but we don't know what "low" is relative to.

If you said that your narcissism was rated "2" out of 5, you might just mean that you have some narcissistic traits sometimes. That's how I'd interpret the question, anyway.

But in that case, what exactly are you saying? Not much. You're not saying you're very narcissistic. You're not saying you're more narcissistic than average: you might well think that most other people would also score a "2", or even higher. You're not actually saying "I am narcissistic" at all, just admitting that you're not wholly un-narcissistic... and who of us can really say that?

The same goes for all the questions. I think this study would have been much more interesting if they'd just asked people whether, in their clinical judgement, they meet criteria for the disorder. Or whether, if they had to assess a patient who was just like them, what would they diagnose them with? Because criteria are what professionals use on their patients, not 5 point scales.

ResearchBlogging.orgNachshoni, T., Abramovitch, Y., Lerner, V., Assael-Amir, M., Kotler, M., and Strous, R. (2008). Psychologists' And Social Workers' Self-Descriptions Using DSM-IV Psychopathology Psychological Reports, 103 (1), 173-188 DOI: 10.2466/pr0.103.1.173-188

11 comments:

Gustavo said...

Very fuzzy. If they had just been diagnosed by someone else using a standardised protocol like SCID I-II, but all this selfdiagnosis with such a loose style...Worst than nothing.

Warren Davies said...

Legend has it that psychologists study things they have problems with themselves. E.g, depression specialists had depression. Sports psychologists aren't actually good at sport. Developmental psychologists... umm, had a childhood.

Zigs said...

I agree this is not that convincing. There was a study from 2005 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16536116) where researchers looked at personality disorders in Thai medical students by screening then following up positive screens with a standardized interview.

They essentially found similar rates of PDs compared to the general population.

Neuroskeptic said...

Gustavo: There's two aspects of the fuzziness - self report, and the lack of accepted criteria.

I think the second one is the killer. Self-report is not bad per se, I think, after all you'd hope that if a psychiatrist could diagnose someone else using the SCID, they would be able to diagnose themselves with it.

Indeed self-diagnosis would avoid under-diagnosis based on, say, being embarrased to admit certain symptoms.

I'd be very interested in a study that just asked psychiatrists - in your expert opinion, based on DSM-IV have you ever met criteria for... X Y Z.

Neuroskeptic said...

Zigs: Well there was a study of the general population in the UK a while back that found that over 75% of people either met criteria for a PD or "nearly" did.

Assuming "nearly" being PD would score a 2 on a 5 point scale, that would fit with these results very nicely.

Although all it tells us is that "nearly PD" is a meaningless category which includes almost everyone!

Gustavo said...

You're right: selfdiagnosis is not the real killer. But, being potentially valid on axis I, it would probably be a bit loose on axis II (which requires, I think, and outside or at least not-direct look in anyone; actually it'd be more accurate and informative to have a dimensional test on that, rather than the-very-low-validity scid II, a real nightmare for serious researchers). But then maybe it's the whole axis II thing (with their vagueness, overlapping, and lack of meaning/purpose in behaviors under observation) that is a bluff.
Sure that hypothetical study you mention would be very interesting.
Thanks for your blog: a must.

Ric said...

Gustavo, yes, worse than nothing.

Where is the comparison to the control group? Without a control group, those figures can mean anything.

And are the participants a representative sample of all psychologists and social workers in Israel? If not, the generalization is ridiculous.

And, yes, the self-diagnosis. This is about self description - with all the untruthfulness and cognitive biases it may imply.

So any conclusions about the participants' objective mental health is unfounded.

It seems that this paper only shows what the psychologists and social workers who took the self-evaluation at the Beer Yaakov Mental Health Center think about themselves. Interesting, suggestive, but nothing else.

BTW, thanks for your blog.

Jason Fleischer said...

On a related note: http://www.theonion.com/articles/freshman-psych-student-diagnoses-roommate-with-bip,379/

Anonymous said...

I just recently learned in my pyschology class that 1 in every 4 American adults have experienced the symptoms of some type of psychological disorder. With disorders being so common, it is very certain that some of the people we trust to tell us about psychology have disorders themselves.

pay per head said...

Hello, Such a wonderful blog i ever read. Please keep posting good blogs. Thank you very much...

new york psychologists said...

Are Psychologists All Mad? Oh, So funny, though I don't think so, If it is right then is it true that "All Mads are Psychologists" , No There have more kinds of people, such as, you :-)' and me.

Enjoy your writing style, keep it up