A semantic study of concepts of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists

Bibliographic Data

ID3936061
AuthorsHarry M Grayson (West Los Angeles College), Ruth S Tolman
Year1950
Volume45
Issue2
Pages216-231
Publication date1950-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Abnormal & Social Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0096-851X
PublisherAmerican Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1037/h0058587
PMID15415185
OpenAlexW2004204789
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited7

The 50 words appearing most frequently in psychological reports were investigated in terms of semantic difficulties. A quantitative analysis of definitions indicated that psychologists were more verbose and circuitous than psychiatrists whether the content of the term was psychological, psychiatric, or psychoanalytical. Wide variations occurred. Viewed qualitatively, the psychologists' definitions were more abstract, more highly conceptualized, more academic and technical. One of the most striking findings was the looseness and ambiguity of many of the definitions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

Cognitive psychology · Psychotherapist · Applied Psychology · Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies · Clinical Psychology · Medical and Biological Sciences · Medical Research and Practices · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub