The latest in SASB and IRT
Published Review articles on SASB
Summary of known publications in SASB including many without DOI to abstracts
Evaluation of Clinical use of SASB in “Interpersonal Diagnosis and Treatment of Personality Disorders”
SASB codes were the basis of the descriptions of personSuality in the book, Interpersonal Diagnosis and Treatment of Personality Disorder. One of the reviews of this book marked the role of SASB in it. “Dr. Benjamin has developed a very compelling, creative, provocative, and insightful interpersonal model for the diagnosis and treatment of PDs. This text provides in one place a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the DSM-IV PDs from the perspective of her Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB). The SASB is a ‘tour de force.’ It provides a creative integration of interpersonal circumplex theory … with psychodynamic object relations theory … .This text will allow you to clearly understand how Dr. Benjamin would provide an SASB diagnosis and how such a diagnosis would translate into a DSM-IV PD (and vice versa).” –Joumal of Personality Assessment
A response to an invitation to explain Clinical implications of SASB
There was an invited “target” article in a social psychological journal called: Psychological inquiry. It was followed by commentary by invited research specialists in interpersonal theory. Reviews in these commentaries ranged from extremely positive to extremely negative. I was given a chance to respond to the critiques.
The abstracts of my target article, critiques, and my response to them:
People who acccess the full text versions will find these exchanges to be unusual for academic publications because of their high implict levels of “affect”
Studies of the Validity of SASB structure
The structure of SASB items is tested by a dimensional ratings method (naive raters rate each item on a scale that ranges from extreme hostility to extreme friendliness. In another set, naive raters assess each item on a scale that ranges from control to emancipate. In another set, from submit to separate. In another set, naive raters assess each item in terms of interpersonal focus: is it on another person; on the self in relation to another person; on the self in relation to the self.
Items are then assessed in terms of whether factor analyses of data generated when patients apply the items to themselves rather than judge the structure of the items per se. For some reason unknown to me this is the standard method for assessing structure of items. SASB items perform well by this method, but the reconstructed model is not a perfect circle and that is a topic of great concern to critics of SASB. I note that it is possible the attachment axis carries more variance than the interdependence axis, and cite as a model Kepler’s useful observation that the earth’s orbit is an elipse, not a perfect circle as proposed by Copernicus.
Here is a link to studies focusing on the validity of SASB structure and predictive principles
Dieter Tscheulin’s German translation of the SASB long forms shows excellent content validity by the dimensional ratings method (naive raters assess items for underlying structure (Hate to Love; Control/Submit to Emancipate/Separate; and focus: other, self, introject)
Dimensional ratings of the SASB medium form items in English show intended dimensionality by the dimensional ratings method.
Reconstructions by the factor analytic method are more elliptical (with love/ hate carrying more variance than enmeshment/differentiation)
Jeffrey C. Rothweiler completed a giant sized, extremely valuable doctoral dissertation on Internal and External validity of SASB. I remain hopeful that he (and perhaps I) will find time to publish it before many more years roll by.
The sun was long believed to revolve around the earth in a perfect circle