Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:19:46.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6a - Good Taxonomy Can Address Classification Challenges in Personality Pathology by Providing Informative Priors That Balance Information Compression and Fidelity: Commentary on Categorical Models of Personality Disorders

from Part II - Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2020

Carl W. Lejuez
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Kim L. Gratz
Affiliation:
University of Toledo, Ohio
Get access

Summary

Over the past twenty years, several taxonomies of personality and psychopathology have been developed. More recently, many studies have compared dimensional models of personality pathology to categorical diagnoses of personality disorders. Altogether, this proliferation of research suggests the value of articulating the desirable properties of a good taxonomic system. Here, the authors extend basic research in cognitive science on the limitations of representational capacity, which suggests that humans need to compress complex clinical presentations to make good judgments. With this in mind, the authors propose that information compression and information fidelity are two principles that are essential to good taxonomy. The principle of information compression is that taxonomies should prune the complexities of a detailed clinical presentation to focus on important sources of covariation. The principle of information fidelity is that a good taxonomy should maintain essential features that reasonably approximate the structure of an individual or the population. They conclude with the claim that the overarching goal of taxonomic science in classifying personality pathology is to provide clinicians and researchers with empirically based informative priors that help to bias thinking toward useful clinical distinctions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
Blashfield, R. K., & Draguns, J. G. (1976). Toward a taxonomy of psychopathology: The purpose of psychiatric classification. British Journal of Psychiatry, 129(6), 574583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243(4899), 16681674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., Keyes, K. M., Wall, M., Hasin, D. S., Markon, K. E., … Grant, B. F. (2013). The structure and predictive validity of the internalizing disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(1), 8692.Google Scholar
Faust, D. (2012). Decision research can increase the accuracy of clinical judgment and thereby improve patient care. In Lilienfeld, S. O. & O’Donohue, W. T. (Eds.), The Great Ideas of Clinical Science (pp. 4976). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hallquist, M. N., & Dombrovski, A. Y. (2019). Selective maintenance of value information helps resolve the exploration/exploitation dilemma. Cognition, 183, 226243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyman, S. E. (2010). The diagnosis of mental disorders: The problem of reification. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 155179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., … Wang, P. (2010). Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., … Zimmerman, M. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(4), 454477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42(9), 18791890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, R. F., Kotov, R., Watson, D., Forbes, M. K., Eaton, N. R., Ruggero, C. J., … Zimmermann, J. (2018). Progress in achieving quantitative classification of psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 282293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, W. J., Husain, M., & Bays, P. M. (2014). Changing concepts of working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 17(3), 347356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markon, K. E. (2013). Epistemological pluralism and scientific development: An argument against authoritative nosologies. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(5), 554579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2006). Information-theoretic latent distribution modeling: Distinguishing discrete and continuous latent variable models. Psychological Methods, 11(3), 228243.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52(3), 194216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruggero, C. J., Zimmerman, M., Chelminski, I., & Young, D. (2010). Borderline personality disorder and the misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 44(6), 405408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simms, L. J., & Clark, L. A. (2006). The Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP): A dimensional measure of traits relevant to personality and personality pathology. In Strack, S. (Ed.), Differentiating Normal and Abnormal Personality (2nd ed., pp. 431450). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 11241131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62(2), 7183.Google Scholar
Zachar, P., Turkheimer, E., & Shaffner, K. (in press). Defining and redefining phenotypes: Operational definitions as open concepts. In Wright, A. G. C. & Hallquist, M. N. (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×