{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034574468085106384, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005319148936170213, 'mean_word_length': 5.38135593220339, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Scientific progress in psychodynamic formulation.

This issue of psychiatry contains five papers describing or comparing five different methods for making a psychodynamic formulation (Luborsky and Crits-Christoph; Horowitz; Johnson et al.; Perry, Augusto, et al.; Perry, Luborsky, et al.). As Luborsky and Crits-Christoph make clear in their introduction, while the idea of the psychodynamic formulation originated with Freud, successful efforts to develop scientific methods for making a formulation are largely a phenomenon of the past decade. Indeed, since the introduction of the Core Conflictual Relationship Theme method (Luborsky 1977), around a dozen methods have been developed with the same overall aim. Let us consider why this is important.