The article features a new technique of work motivation diagnostics based on the new developed concept of motivational task. A motivational task is a tool for selfappraisal in the field of motivational objects allowing further reconstruction of motivational space. The conditions of the motivational task resolution have been implemented in the diagnostic procedure “Motivational Map”. The diagnostics procedure consists in multiple visual appraisal forms of 16 motivational objects (J.Nuttin) within a dimensional graphic space determined by 6 evaluation scales. To indicate the geometric patterns that reflect the relationship between motivational objects the term subjective motivation space is used, based on the definition of subjective psychological space in modern models of multidimensional scaling. Conditions of motivational tasks are as follows: ranking of motivational objects, determining the subjective centre of motivational space, multiple comparative evaluation of motivational objects, successive refinement of estimates of motivational objects, adjusting the motivational space with due account of placing high priority motivational object. Approbation of new assessment technique was conducted using a sample of 206 financial experts and included two series which had the test and the retest stages. These results were compared with the scores received using the results of standard questionnaires. The construct validity of the methodology was assessed by means of the regression analysis. The scales used in the standard methodologies of work motivation assessment served as the independent variables, while the parameters registered by the developed methodology served as the dependent variables. In the course of validity analysis, 32 highly important regression models were established. The results of psychometric verification of validity and reliability are presented in this paper.

The paper discusses changes introduced in the new edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) published by the American Psychiatric Association in May 2013. The DSM-5 was subjected to a flood of criticism already at the time of its preparation. The authors examine the reasons for revising the previous edition of DSM and provide examples of structural and diagnostic changes introduced in the DSM-5. Special attention is paid to those innovations, which have initiated controversy and debate in the professional community. The paper gives consideration to criticism of the changes in the DSM-5 and urges to the development of a new methodological approach to mental health.