精神病理学概念化研究的方法和模型综述

IF 16.8 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Nicholas R. Eaton, Laura F. Bringmann, Timon Elmer, Eiko I. Fried, Miriam K. Forbes, Ashley L. Greene, Robert F. Krueger, Roman Kotov, Patrick D. McGorry, Cristina Mei, Monika A. Waszczuk
{"title":"精神病理学概念化研究的方法和模型综述","authors":"Nicholas R. Eaton, Laura F. Bringmann, Timon Elmer, Eiko I. Fried, Miriam K. Forbes, Ashley L. Greene, Robert F. Krueger, Roman Kotov, Patrick D. McGorry, Cristina Mei, Monika A. Waszczuk","doi":"10.1038/s44159-023-00218-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mental disorder classification provides a definitional framework that underlies applied clinical and research efforts to understand, assess, predict, prevent and ameliorate the burden of psychopathology. Many classification frameworks exist, perhaps most notable being the ‘authoritative’ systems of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases. However, numerous limitations of official classification systems have been identified, fostering the development of empirically derived, statistical and psychometric alternative classification approaches, which attempt to overcome those limitations. In this Review, we describe three such advances: transdiagnostic dimensional approaches (such as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology; HiTOP), network approaches and clinical staging approaches. We discuss their strengths, limitations, divergence, overlap, and scientific and clinical utility, with a focus on the potential synthesis and integration of disparate approaches towards better classification of mental disorders. Mental disorder classification provides a definitional framework that underlies applied clinical and research efforts to understand, assess, predict, prevent and ameliorate the burden of psychopathology. In this Review, Eaton et al. describe transdiagnostic dimensional, network and clinical staging approaches to classification and consider their strengths, their limitations, and their scientific and clinical utility.","PeriodicalId":74249,"journal":{"name":"Nature reviews psychology","volume":"2 10","pages":"622-636"},"PeriodicalIF":16.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A review of approaches and models in psychopathology conceptualization research\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas R. Eaton, Laura F. Bringmann, Timon Elmer, Eiko I. Fried, Miriam K. Forbes, Ashley L. Greene, Robert F. Krueger, Roman Kotov, Patrick D. McGorry, Cristina Mei, Monika A. Waszczuk\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s44159-023-00218-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mental disorder classification provides a definitional framework that underlies applied clinical and research efforts to understand, assess, predict, prevent and ameliorate the burden of psychopathology. Many classification frameworks exist, perhaps most notable being the ‘authoritative’ systems of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases. However, numerous limitations of official classification systems have been identified, fostering the development of empirically derived, statistical and psychometric alternative classification approaches, which attempt to overcome those limitations. In this Review, we describe three such advances: transdiagnostic dimensional approaches (such as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology; HiTOP), network approaches and clinical staging approaches. We discuss their strengths, limitations, divergence, overlap, and scientific and clinical utility, with a focus on the potential synthesis and integration of disparate approaches towards better classification of mental disorders. Mental disorder classification provides a definitional framework that underlies applied clinical and research efforts to understand, assess, predict, prevent and ameliorate the burden of psychopathology. In this Review, Eaton et al. describe transdiagnostic dimensional, network and clinical staging approaches to classification and consider their strengths, their limitations, and their scientific and clinical utility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature reviews psychology\",\"volume\":\"2 10\",\"pages\":\"622-636\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature reviews psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-023-00218-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature reviews psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-023-00218-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

精神障碍分类提供了一个定义框架,它是临床应用和研究工作的基础,以便了解、评估、预测、预防和减轻精神病理学的负担。目前有许多分类框架,其中最著名的可能是《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第五版和《国际疾病分类》第 11 版的 "权威 "系统。然而,官方分类系统的许多局限性已被发现,这促进了根据经验得出的、统计和心理测量的替代分类方法的发展,这些方法试图克服这些局限性。在本综述中,我们将介绍三种此类进展:跨诊断维度方法(如精神病理学层次分类法;HiTOP)、网络方法和临床分期方法。我们将讨论它们的优势、局限性、分歧、重叠以及科学和临床实用性,重点关注不同方法的潜在综合与整合,以更好地进行精神障碍分类。精神障碍分类提供了一个定义框架,它是临床应用和研究工作的基础,以了解、评估、预测、预防和改善精神病理学的负担。在这篇综述中,伊顿等人介绍了跨诊断维度、网络和临床分期的分类方法,并考虑了它们的优势、局限性及其科学和临床用途。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A review of approaches and models in psychopathology conceptualization research

A review of approaches and models in psychopathology conceptualization research

A review of approaches and models in psychopathology conceptualization research
Mental disorder classification provides a definitional framework that underlies applied clinical and research efforts to understand, assess, predict, prevent and ameliorate the burden of psychopathology. Many classification frameworks exist, perhaps most notable being the ‘authoritative’ systems of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases. However, numerous limitations of official classification systems have been identified, fostering the development of empirically derived, statistical and psychometric alternative classification approaches, which attempt to overcome those limitations. In this Review, we describe three such advances: transdiagnostic dimensional approaches (such as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology; HiTOP), network approaches and clinical staging approaches. We discuss their strengths, limitations, divergence, overlap, and scientific and clinical utility, with a focus on the potential synthesis and integration of disparate approaches towards better classification of mental disorders. Mental disorder classification provides a definitional framework that underlies applied clinical and research efforts to understand, assess, predict, prevent and ameliorate the burden of psychopathology. In this Review, Eaton et al. describe transdiagnostic dimensional, network and clinical staging approaches to classification and consider their strengths, their limitations, and their scientific and clinical utility.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信