Yes and no. For some time, I have referred to the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. This I have found to be particularly helpful. I thought I might find the same with the Penguin Dictionary of Critical Theory. But first, what is critical theory? While there are several possible definitions, perhaps the following would make most sense. Scientific theory, in whatever field, uses "instrumental reason" for the purpose of "manipulating the external world". Critical theory might be said to be theory which examines the instrumental reason itself.
The Dictionary of Critical Theory is strong from the point of view that it is broad in the information it provides. It sketches e.g. both the origins and the outcomes of metaphysics, or both the early and the late work of Jacques Derrida -- and it gives one a good feel for the mood among academics, and for caveats one should be aware of. It is strong from the point of view that it succeeds in reducing vast and complex subject matter to concise and manageable entries -- and it is generally up to date. It also has a very useful bibliography at the back (80 pages).
I would consider it weak from the point of view that it is not as comprehensive as it might be. I looked up "systems theory". Nothing. I looked up "axioms", "coherentism", "Michael Polanyi". There was nothing -- where there might have been, at least, a single-line cross-reference. I would also consider it weak from the point of view that it sometimes seems too technical to be useful. For instance, I looked up "metalanguage". This, it says, is "a technical or second-order language used to describe and analyse a natural or first-order language". A dictionary, surely, is intended to be more explicatory than that.
The book is useful -- and I would rather have it than not. This is the first impression in paperback, and hopefully future editions would overcome some of the present shortcomings.