This is the first issue of Behaviour Change, a publication of the Australian Behaviour Modification Association. Since the formation of behaviour modification interest groups within the various states in the 1970s, two publications have appeared, i.e. the Australian Behaviour Therapist (ABT) and the South Australian Behaviour Therapist (SABT). The Sydney-based ABT served the function of a national newsletter/journal, while the SABT concentrated upon meeting local needs. For various reasons the ABT and SABT have ceased publication. It has always been the consensus of opinion, however, the there should be a regular publication of some kind on “behaviour modification”. A significant step was taken when the National Committee of the Australian Behaviour Modification Association, May 1983 (Adelaide), recommended that the Victorian Branch investigate the “feasibility and format” of a regular publication. The Victorian Branch presented a written report to the National Committee, September 1983 (Sydney), recommending a regular publication and specific guidelines with respect to content and management. After much discussion, it was agreed that the publication be called Behaviour Change, and that the Victorian Branch take responsibility for the endeavour. After several years it is expected that another Branch will take over the responsibility of publishing Behaviour Change.

Those seeking a definition of “behaviour therapy” or “behaviour modification” may experience some frustration when textbooks and journals are consulted. At one stage it was generally agreed that behaviour therapy involves the application of the principles and knowledge of modern learning theory to maladaptive human behaviour (Eysenck, 1959). However, this definition has been challenged. It has been suggested that behaviour therapy should not be restricted to learning theory but encompass experimental psychology and related disciplines such as physiology and neurophysiology (Yates, 1971). Still others suggest that ties to learning theory and experimental psychology are tenuous and should be discarded (Lazarus, 1971). With the advent of several conceptual variations — applied behaviour analysis, the neobehaviouristic stimulus-response model, multimodal behaviour therapy, social learning theory and cognitive-behaviour modification — attempts to define behaviour therapy are even more difficult. However, Kazdin and Hersen (1980) suggest that the major characteristics of behaviour therapy consist of:

1. A strong commitment to empirical evaluation of treatment and intervention techniques;

2. A general belief that therapeutic experiences must provide opportunities to learn adaptive or prosocial behaviour;

3. Specification of treatment in operational and, hence, replicable terms;

4. Evaluation of treatment effects through multiple-response modalities, with particular emphasis on overt behaviour.

In this article we address the relationship between behavioural assessment and psychiatric diagnosis. We argue that a diagnostic formulation should be made prior to behavioural assessment but consider diagnosis as complementary to traditional behavioural assessment. Implicit in our proposal, is the notion that behavioural practitioners should be thoroughly conversant with the various forms of psychopathology, and be able to identify the signs and symptoms that cluster together to constitute a clinical syndrome or disorder. The same practitioners should be able to differentiate the signs and symptoms of one syndrome or disorder from another. It is further proposed that behavioural practitioners need to be aware of the limitations and boundaries of their particular approaches and concede the value of other treatment approaches (especially chemotherapy) derived from different theoretical perspectives (Hersen 1979, 1981; Kazdin and Hersen, 1980). Such approaches may assume priority in the treatment of certain disorders, e.g., the first-rank symptoms of schizophrenia.

The term diagnosis means “to know through” and is simply a hypothesis about the nature of a problem (Rush, 1982). Ideally, a diagnosis should simplify complex data; provide information about the likely outcome of a particular psychiatric disorder with and without treatment; allow improved prognostic judgements; assist in the selection of appropriate treatments; allow communication between professionals; and lead to improved clinical strategies (Kendell, 1974; Rush, 1982).