The article analyses modern descriptive psychopathology, its epistemological basis and the contribution it has made to the determination of biological typologys in psychiatry. Sorne consequences of the search for reliability and validity are discussed in relation to nosographic classifications and instruments such as the DSM-1, DSM-11, PSE, etc. The author refers to the danger of closure and to the alternatives that exist for facing it. The concept of unity of analysis is discussed as well as the importance of adapting it to models of functional research that permit a multidimensional approach to psychopathology. This would permit classifications with a greater probability of having organic representation. Finally, the author points out the legitimity of the individual case approach.

This paper deals with some of the issues that affect the understanding and functioning of descriptive psychopathology (DP). The latter remains the language of description in psychiatry and the basis for her nosological constructs. DP makes assumptions concerning the nature of its object and its underlying causes (i.e. makes use of the medical model). DP needs historical, clinical and numerical recalibration. It is suggested that in some cases, and against traditional psychometric principles, some instruments will have to be constructed that show flexibility and can be varied according to the descriptive needs presented by individual cases.

The article analyses modern descriptive psychopathology, its epistemological basis and the contribution it has made to the determination of biological typologys in psychiatry. Sorne consequences of the search for reliability and validity are discussed in relation to nosographic classifications and instruments such as the DSM-1, DSM-11, PSE, etc. The author refers to the danger of closure and to the alternatives that exist for facing it. The concept of unity of analysis is discussed as well as the importance of adapting it to models of functional research that permit a multidimensional approach to psychopathology. This would permit classifications with a greater probability of having organic representation. Finally, the author points out the legitimity of the individual case approach.

This paper deals with some of the issues that affect the understanding and functioning of descriptive psychopathology (DP). The latter remains the language of description in psychiatry and the basis for her nosological constructs. DP makes assumptions concerning the nature of its object and its underlying causes (i.e. makes use of the medical model). DP needs historical, clinical and numerical recalibration. It is suggested that in some cases, and against traditional psychometric principles, some instruments will have to be constructed that show flexibility and can be varied according to the descriptive needs presented by individual cases.