Taxonomy Of Psychopathology Research Articles

Factor structure and validity of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms-II (IDAS-II) in a chronic back pain treatment-seeking sample.

Many patients who seek treatment for chronic back pain are also at a higher risk of having comorbid anxiety- and depression-related disorders. Measures of mood and anxiety are routinely used in medical settings to screen for depression- and anxiety-related symptoms. However, factor analyses of other measures of mood and anxiety in medical settings often detect a somatization factor which, in turn, limits their discriminant validity for use across medical settings. The Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms-II (IDAS-II) is a comprehensive self-report inventory that assesses varying aspects of mood and anxiety. The purpose of this investigation is to examine the three-factor structure and validity of the IDAS-II in a chronic pain treatment-seeking sample. A total of 169 patients completed the IDAS-II and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) upon admission. Confirmatory factor analyses were computed using the scales of the IDAS-II and zero-order correlations between the IDAS-II factors from the best-fitting model and scale scores of the MMPI-2-RF. Overall, a three-factor structure of the IDAS-II was not supported; instead, a one-factor solution fit best. Using the MMPI-2-RF as external criteria, the one-factor of the IDAS-II correlated highest with the Somatic Complaints scale and the Demoralization scale. Overall, item content on the IDAS-II shares overlap with many symptoms that patients with chronic pain likely would endorse. Discussion about implications of using mood/anxiety measures and models in medical settings that are in line with the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Alternative Models of Psychopathology: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, Research Domain Criteria, Network Analysis, the Cambridge Model, and the Five-Factor Model

Wilshire, Ward, and Clark (this issue, p. 323) critiqued the classification of psychopathology in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, offering as an alternative a “Cambridge model” that focuses on symptoms rather than syndromes. They compared their model with additional alternatives, such as the Research Domain Criteria, the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, and network analysis. In this commentary, I offer further comparisons, considering as well the five-factor model alternative to the DSM syndromal classification of personality disorder.

Taxonomy of psychopathology: a work in progress and a call for interdisciplinary research.

Taxonomy of psychopathology: a work in progress and a call for interdisciplinary research.

Supplemental Material for Mapping MMPI-3 Scales Onto the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology

Supplemental Material for Mapping MMPI-3 Scales Onto the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology

Neurobiology and the Hierarchical Taxonomy ofPsychopathology: progress toward ontogenetically informed and clinically usefulnosology

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is an empirical structural model of psychological symptoms formulated to improve the reliability and validity of clinical assessment. Neurobiology can inform assessments of early risk and intervention strategies, and the HiTOP model has greater potential to interface with neurobiological measures than traditional categorical diagnoses given its enhanced reliability. However, one complication is that observed biological correlates of clinical symptoms can reflect various factors, ranging from dispositional risk to consequences of psychopathology. In this paper, we argue that the HiTOP model provides an optimized framework for conducting research on the biological correlates of psychopathology from an ontogenetic perspective that distinguishes among indicators of liability, current symptoms, and consequences of illness. Through this approach, neurobiological research can contribute more effectively to identifying individuals at high dispositional risk, indexing treatment-related gains, and monitoring the consequences of mental illness, consistent with the aims of the HiTOP framework.

Commentary: Contextualizing Neuroticism in the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology.

Dit commentaar bevat belangrijke overwegingen in ons begrip van het verband tussen de persoonlijkheidsdimensie neuroticisme en de ontwikkeling van veelvoorkomende mentale stoornissen vanuit het perspectief van het HiTOP dimensionele model van psychopathologie. Processes op het individuele niveau moeten worden aangetoond om het model substantie te geven.

Supplemental Material for Redefining Phenotypes to Advance Psychiatric Genetics: Implications From Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology

Supplemental Material for Redefining Phenotypes to Advance Psychiatric Genetics: Implications From Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology

The Higher-Order Structure of Schema Modes.

In schema therapy, modes are proposed as a key concept and main target for treatment of personality disorders. The present study aimed to assess a comprehensive set of 20 modes, to explore their higher-order structure, and to link the mode factors to the generic schema factor and basic personality traits. The sample consisted of N = 533 inpatients. Earlier versions of the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI, SMI-2) were merged into the German Extended SMI (GE-SMI). Item-level confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the structure of 16 out of 20 GE-SMI scales might be unidimensional. Scale-level exploratory factor analysis revealed three hierarchically structured mode factors: internalization, externalization, and compulsivity. Regressing mode factor scores on the Big Five factors and the generic schema factor supported the validity of the mode factors. The hierarchical structure of modes will be linked to the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, and implications for case conceptualization and treatment will be discussed.

The structure of psychopathological symptoms and the associations with DSM-diagnoses in treatment seeking individuals

BackgroundResearch on comorbidity of psychiatric disorders identifies broad superordinate dimensions as underlying structure of psychopathology. While a syndrome-level approach informs diagnostic systems, a symptom-level approach is more likely to represent the dimensional components within existing diagnostic categories. It may capture general emotional, cognitive or physiological processes as underlying liabilities of different disorders and thus further develop dimensional-spectrum models of psychopathology. MethodsExploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine the structure of psychopathological symptoms assessed with the Brief Symptom Inventory in two outpatient samples (n=3171), including several correlated-factors and bifactor models. The preferred models were correlated with DSM-diagnoses. ResultsA model containing eight correlated factors for depressed mood, phobic fear, aggression, suicidal ideation, nervous tension, somatic symptoms, information processing deficits, and interpersonal insecurity, as well a bifactor model fit the data best. Distinct patterns of correlations with DSM-diagnoses identified a) distress-related disorders, i.e., mood disorders, PTSD, and personality disorders, which were associated with all correlated factors as well as the underlying general distress factor; b) anxiety disorders with more specific patterns of correlations; and c) disorders defined by behavioural or somatic dysfunctions, which were characterised by non-significant or negative correlations with most factors. ConclusionsThis study identified emotional, somatic, cognitive, and interpersonal components of psychopathology as transdiagnostic psychopathological liabilities. These components can contribute to a more accurate description and taxonomy of psychopathology, may serve as phenotypic constructs for further aetiological research, and can inform the development of tailored general and specific interventions to treat mental disorders.

Subtypes, Specifiers, Epicycles, and Eccentrics: Toward a More Parsimonious Taxonomy of Psychopathology

Subtypes, Specifiers, Epicycles, and Eccentrics: Toward a More Parsimonious Taxonomy of Psychopathology

Subtypes, specifiers, epicycles, and eccentrics: Toward a more parsimonious taxonomy of psychopathology.

Berenbaum, Raghavan, Le, Vernon, and Gomez (2003; this issue) have performed a valuable service by articulating a taxonomy of emotional disturbance. While acknowledging that this structure has many attractive features (e.g., its inclusion of specific negative emotions such as disgust and anger), I discuss three potential problems. First, in comparison to “predominantly unpleasant” dysfunctions, little evidence supports the existence of “predominantly pleasant” disturbances in psychopathol-ogy. Second, emotional reactivity is confounded with valence, and it is unclear whether these two proposed types of disturbances actually provide independent information. Third, Berenbaum et al.'s taxonomy fails to model the behavioral substrate of emotions. I conclude by arguing that emotion-based taxonomies should be used to supplant—rather than supplement—the existing DSM framework.

Challenges and benefits of assessment, diagnosis, and taxonomy for clinical practice and research.

To outline nosological (top-down) and empirically based (bottom-up) approaches to assessment and taxonomy of psychopathology. The two approaches were compared and contrasted to highlight similarities and differences between them. To advance services and research, we need to make optimal use of assessment data (i) to identify the distinguishing features of each case, and (ii) to link individual patterns of functioning with taxonomic constructs that can help us apply previously accumulated knowledge to new cases. The time may be ripe for integrating nosological and empirically based approaches. One way to integrate these approaches is to construct empirically based and DSM-oriented scales from the same item pools and to generate age- and gender-specific standard scores and cut-off points from the same normative samples. Integration of the approaches was illustrated with profiles of empirically based and DSM-oriented scales scored from the same item pools and quantified in relation to the same normative samples. To facilitate use by clinicians and researchers under diverse conditions, data are readily obtained on forms completed independently by parents, teachers and others. The data can be quickly scored by hand or computer. To take account of situational and informant variations, the computer software systematically compares data from multiple informants on empirically based and DSM-oriented scales.

Intellectual handicap in contemporary psychiatry.

To apprise readers of the 'state of play' in the psychiatry of intellectual handicap. A review was conducted of relevant journals and conference abstracts covering a range of scientific aspects of intellectual disability. Those developments considered to be most significant were summarised. In addition, consideration is given to issues relevant to the politics of disability affecting psychiatric practice in Australia. There have been considerable developments in our understanding of the pathogenesis of intellectual handicap in pharmacotherapy and the behavioural therapies, in the taxonomy of psychopathology, in epidemiology, in delineation of behaviour phenotypes, and in assessment and measurement of psychopathology. Intellectual handicap and psychiatry have had a chequered relationship in Australia, but the two fields are now clearly moving again to a closer and more productive collaboration. Recent scientific advances have provided a stimulating environment for this increased activity and interest.

Toward a Taxonomy of Psychopathology: The Purpose of Psychiatric Classification

The topic of psychiatric classification has generated more interest and controversy in the last decade than for a long time. Several trends have coalesced to foster its resurgence as a subject of debate. First, a sociological perspective on psychopathology has gained widespread attention (Becker, 1963; Matza, 1969; Scheff, 1966). The exponents of this perspective have focused on the effects of ‘labelling.’ Their writings have stimulated mental health professionals to examine the consequences of applying classificatory systems in psychiatry. Second, the rapid development of behaviour modification has been a source of numerous polemical attacks on the ‘medical model’ and on the classification system derived from the notion that psychological disturbances constitute a finite number of varieties of mental illness (e.g., Ullmann and Krasner, 1975). Third, criticisms have been voiced of the unsatisfactory reliability of the standard/accepted national and international psychiatric classification schemes (e.g., Scharfetter, 1971; Spitzer and Wilson, 1974). Such criticisms have sparked the development of new classificatory systems notable for the specificity and explicitness of rules of diagnostic assignment (Feighner et al, 1972; Spitzer, Endicott, and Robins, 1974).