Book contents
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Advance Praise for Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- General Introduction
- Part I Neuroscience, Mechanisms, and RDoC
- Part II Phenomenology, Biological Psychology, and the Mind–Body Problem
- Part III Taxonomy, Integration, and Multiple Levels of Explanation
- Section 8
- Section 9
- Section 10
- 28 Introduction
- 29 Psychiatric Classification: An A-reductionist Perspective
- 30 Double Black Diamond
- Section 11
- Section 12
- Section 13
- Section 14
- Section 15
- Index
- References
28 - Introduction
from Section 10
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2020
By
Book contents
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Advance Praise for Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Levels of Analysis in Psychopathology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- General Introduction
- Part I Neuroscience, Mechanisms, and RDoC
- Part II Phenomenology, Biological Psychology, and the Mind–Body Problem
- Part III Taxonomy, Integration, and Multiple Levels of Explanation
- Section 8
- Section 9
- Section 10
- 28 Introduction
- 29 Psychiatric Classification: An A-reductionist Perspective
- 30 Double Black Diamond
- Section 11
- Section 12
- Section 13
- Section 14
- Section 15
- Index
- References
Summary
Several chapters in this volume address the heterogeneity problem in psychiatric classification, i.e., that constructs such as major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder have turned out to be too coarse-grained to support the discovery of underlying mechanisms or to guide clinicians in selecting disorder-specific treatments (Bilder Chapter 5, Miller Chapter 20, although see Bechtel Chapter 2 for a different view on mechanisms and heterogeneity). Bringing a more statistical perspective to the heterogeneity issue, Jan-Willem Romeijn and Hanna M. van Loo refer to this as the reference class problem.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Levels of Analysis in PsychopathologyCross-Disciplinary Perspectives, pp. 345 - 348Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) ‘Construct validity in psychological tests.’ Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.Google Scholar
Kessler, R. C., van Loo, H. M., Wardenaar, K. J., Bossarte, R. M., Brenner, L. A., Ebert, D. D., … Zaslavsky, A. M. (2017) ‘Using patient self-reports to study heterogeneity of treatment effects in major depressive disorder.’ Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 26(1), 22–36.Google Scholar
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948)’ On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables.’ Psychological Review, 55(2), 95–107.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1945) ‘The dynamics of “structured” personality tests.’ Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1(4), 296–303.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1954) Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Spitzer, R. L., Endicott, J., & Robins, E. (1978). Research diagnostic criteria. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35(6), 773–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zachar, P. (2012) ‘Progress and the calibration of scientific constructs: The role of comparative validity.’ In Kendler, K. S. & Parnas, J. (Eds.), Philosophical issues in psychiatry II: Nosology-definition of illness, history, validity, and prospects (pp. 21–34). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar