Special Section Editors: Robert F. Krueger, Jennifer L. Tackett, Angus MacDonald
Classification of psychopathology is a critical topic because classification is a cornerstone of research and applied work in clinical psychology. Historically, classification of psychopathology has been driven primarily by psychiatric authority.
Groups of putative experts are gathered under the auspices of organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association (the publishers of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; DSM). These experts assemble in groups to discuss their clinical experiences with patients, and the resulting committee deliberations form the basis for official classification schemes, such as the scheme codified in the DSM.
In recent years, the limitations of this approach to classifying psychopathology have become apparent. The fundamental limitation is that authority is not a basis for scientific inquiry; indeed, a cornerstone of science is its appeal to evidence rather than authority as the basis for intellectual inquiry.
The November 2016 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology contains a special section consisting of 11 articles that work to develop and explore approaches to classification of psychopathology based on evidence.
In particular, the special section focuses on a structural approach to psychopathology research. In a structural approach, multivariate data (data containing many variables) are explicitly modeled with the aim of using such data to develop empirical classification schemes.
The papers in this special section explore this approach, and together, reflect a few fundamental themes that we highlight here.
Methodological and Population Convergence
Authoritative classification schemes such as that of the DSM tend to promote balkanization of the research literature. They do this by positing that psychopathology can be meaningfully divided into hundreds of putatively distinct categories. Empirically, however, psychopathology is better understood in terms of a smaller number of fundamental dimensions of human experience, such as a tendency to experience distressing thoughts and emotions (often termed the internalizing spectrum), and a tendency to act on impulses without much forethought regarding consequences (often termed the externalizing spectrum).
These types of spectrum concepts help to organize evidence across multiple populations, such as groups that differ in age or ethnicity. They also organize evidence obtained using multiple techniques and types of data, from questionnaires to neuroimaging.
Papers in this special section encompass investigation of
- white matter microstructure via human neuroimaging (Grazioplene, Chavez, Rustichini, & DeYoung, 2016)
- error processing via neurophysiological assessment (Kotov et al., 2016)
- the study of temporally-dynamic processes via diary assessment (Roche, Jacobson, & Pincus, 2016)
- cognitive tasks (Castellanos-Ryan et al., 2016)
- stressful life events interviews (Conway et al., 2016)
- reviews of files from correctional facilities (Sellbom, 2016)
- temperamental systems in children (Slobodskaya, 2016)
- biometrical modeling (Waldman et al., 2016)
- psychosocial functioning interviews (Wright, Hopwood, Skodol, & Morey, 2016)
Authoritative Bodies and Empirical Classification
The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the American Psychiatric Association are in challenging positions in the current scholarly environment. In a previous era, during which authority carried most of the weight in conceptualizing psychopathology, these authorities worked together to influence the thinking of scientists and clinicians on the front lines.
This paradigm is now breaking down, as evidenced by the papers and commentaries in this special section and much other work in recent years.
This can be seen clearly in the themes raised by the papers by Markon & Jonas (2016) and by Sanislow (2016) in this special section.
For example, Markon & Jonas (2016) discuss contemporary models that use data to parse our understanding of the organization of psychopathology. Sanislow (2016) discusses the NIMH's Research Domain Classification effort, which, although sponsored by an authoritative body (the NIMH) seeks to circumvent the historical influence of the DSM's authoritative categories on research.
Similarly, a number of papers mention the newly formed Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) consortiumopens in new window, a grass-roots effort to delineate the classification of psychopathology using data. We encourage our readers to examine the HiTOP webpage, and also to consider becoming involved in HiTOP.
In sum, the papers in this special section continue a movement that emphasizes evidence over authority, and, in particular, the role of psychological science in overcoming psychiatric authority. This is a dynamic that will continue to lead to improvements in the conceptualization and treatment of psychopathology because it places those topics squarely in the realm of scientific inquiry.
Citation:
- Krueger, R. F., Tackett, J. L., & MacDonald, A. (2016). Toward validation of a structural approach to conceptualizing psychopathology: A special section of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(8), 1023–1026. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/abn0000223
Note: This article is in the Clinical Psychology topic area. View more articles in the Clinical Psychology topic area.