Boundaries of mental disorders

Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 653-658

  Jablensky, Assen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Categories; Comorbidity; Diagnostic concepts; Dimensions; Mental disorders; Validity

Indexed keywords

COMORBIDITY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; HUMAN; MENTAL DISEASE; MENTAL HEALTH; REVIEW; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 27644529285     PISSN: 09517367     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.yco.0000184412.98587.a4     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Sadler JZ. Epistemic value commitments in the debate over categorical vs. dimensional personality diagnosis. Philos Psychiatr Psychol 1996; 3:203-222.
2. Eisenberg L. The social construction of mental illness. Psychol Med 1988; 18:1-9.
3. Häfner H. The concept of disease in psychiatry. Psychol Med 1987; 17:11-14.
4. Fulford KWM, Broome M, Stanghellini G, Thornton T. Looking with both eyes open: fact and value in psychiatric diagnosis? World Psychiatry 2005; 4:78-95. The article addresses the 'moral-medical boundary' in the definition and classification of psychiatric disorders, and proposes an explicit recognition of the dual nature of the majority of psychiatric diagnoses.
5. Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Zhao S, et al. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-IIIR psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994; 51:8-19.
6. Zimmerman M, Chelminski I, Young D. On the threshold of disorder: A study of the impact of the DSM-IV clinical significance criterion on diagnosing depressive and anxiety disorders in clinical practice. J Clin Psychiatry 2004; 65:1400-1405.
7. Beals J, Novins DK, Spicer P, et al. Challenges in operationalizing the DSM-IV clinical significance criterion. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004; 61:1197-1207. The authors describe an important empirical test of the impact of five different operations of the clinical significance criterion on DSM-IV diagnostic validity, when applied to a sample of 3084 members of two American Indian groups.
8. Robins LN. Using survey results to improve the validity of the standard psychiatric nomenclature. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004; 61:1188-1194. The article draws attention to the fact that the large databases generated by epidemiological research, now available in the public domain, remain underutilized in current efforts to improve diagnostic validity. The article contains detailed discussion on the various ways in which available databases could be interrogated for answers to a range of questions concerning diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.
9. Rush AJ, Zimmerman M, Wisniewski SR, et al. Comorbid psychiatric disorders in depressed outpatients: demographic and clinical features. J Affect Disord 2005; 87:43-55. This study of 1376 outpatients with major depression explored the prevalence of 11 concurrent psychiatric disorders. Patients with more than one comorbid disorder tended to have earlier onset of major depression, greater symptom severity, and more general medical comorbidity.
10. Biederman J, Petty C, Faraone SV, et al. Patterns of comorbidity in panic disorder and major depression: findings from a nonreferred sample. Depress Anxiety 2005; 21:55-60. In a sample of 1031 participants, examined as non-referred family members of participants in a case-control study of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, the authors found a 'robust level of comorbidity' between major depression and panic disorder, arguing against a referral bias as an explanation for similar results reported in previous studies.
11. Sullivan PF, Kendler KS. Typology of common psychiatric syndromes: an empirical study. Br J Psychiatry 1998; 173:312-319.
12. Lilienfeld SO, Waldman ID, Israel AC. A critical examination of the use of the term and concept of comorbidity in psychopathology research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 1994; 1:71-83.
13. Khan AA, Jacobson KC, Gardner CO, et al. Personality and comorbidity of common psychiatric disorders. Br J Psychiatry 2005; 186:190-196. Using data from the population-based Virginia Twin Register (7588 participants), the authors investigated the relationship between the personality dimensions of neuroticism, extroversion and novelty seeking and the comorbidities among eight common psychiatric and substance use disorders, categorized into an internalizing cluster and an externalizing cluster.
14. Jaspers K. General psychopathology. Translated by J. Hoenig and M.W. Hamilton. Manchester and Chicago: Manchester University Press and University of Chicago Press; 1963.
15. Bearden CE, Reus VI, Freimer NB. Why genetic investigation of psychiatric disorders is so difficult. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2004; 14:280-286.
16. Shedler J, Westen D. Dimensions of personality pathology: an alternative to the five-factor model. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161:1743-1754. The authors provide a critique of the five-factor model of personality (neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience), which originates in lexical analysis of adjectives descriptive of behavioral tendencies.
17. Mataix-Cols D, Conceicão do Rosario Campos M, Leckman JF. A multi-dimensional model of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162:228-238. The authors review the results from 12 factor-analytical studies comprising over 2000 OCD patients and argue for a dimensional model to replace the present categorical classification, which assumes that the condition is a unitary disorder.
18. Williamson DA, Gleaves DH, Stewart TM. Categorical versus dimensional models of eating disorders: an examination of the evidence. Int J Eat Disord 2005; 37:1-10. The authors examine the evidence from recent factor-analytical and taxometric research to compare the utility of categorical (as in DSM-IV and ICD-10) versus dimensional classifications of eating disorders. They conclude that neither categorical nor dimensional models adequately represent the full spectrum of eating disorders.
19. Krabbendam L, Muyin-Germeys I, de Graaf R, et al. Dimensions in depression, mania and psychosis in the general population. Psychol Med 2004; 34:1177-1186. This is one of several statistical analyses conducted by the researchers of the Dutch NEMESIS population-based survey using data from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Confirmatory factor analysis generated seven 'separable' dimensions of psychopathology in the general population.
20. Maric N, Myin-Germeys I, Delespaul P, et al. Is our concept of schizophrenia influenced by Berkson' bias? Soc Psychiatr Epidemiol 2004; 39:600-605. On the basis of the Dutch NEMESIS population cohort, the authors found that both 'positive' and 'negative' psychosis-like symptoms independently increased the probability of a mental health care contact.
21. Lundberg P, Cantor-Graae E, Kabakyenga J, et al. Prevalence of delusional ideation in a district in southwestern Uganda. Schizopr Res 2004; 71:27-34. A sample (n = 80) of apparently healthy young adults in a town and neighboring villages in southwestern Uganda, interviewed with the Peters Delusions Inventory (PDI-21), revealed higher mean scores on delusions and associated distress than European population samples assessed previously with the same instrument.
22. Johns LC, Cannon M, Singleton N, et al. Prevalence and correlates of self-reported psychotic symptoms in the British population. Br J Psychiatry 2004; 185:298-305. Findings from the UK National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity (8520 individuals) indicate that while 28.6% responded positively to one or more of the initial probes of the Psychosis Screening Questionnaire, only 5% endorsed any psychotic symptom items after secondary, more specific questions were asked.
23. Serper M, Dill CA, Chang N, et al. Factorial structure of the hallucinatory experience. Continuity of experience in psychotic and normal individuals. J Nerv Ment Dis 2005; 193:265-272. Two groups of schizophrenia patients, with and without recent or ongoing auditory hallucinations, and a group of undergraduate students, were rated on the Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale. While sub-clinical item scores were consistent with a continuum, discontinuity and qualitative differences between patients and controls were found for clinical hallucinatory symptoms.
24. Kraemer HC, Noda A, O'Hara R. Categorical versus dimensional approaches to diagnosis: methodological challenges. J Psychiatr Res 2004; 38:17-25. This provides a helpful introduction to the statistical aspects of the category - dimension issue in psychiatric research and classification, demonstrating that categorical and dimensional approaches to diagnosis are basically equivalent and mutually convertible, but that specific research questions and clinical considerations dictate preference for one or the other approach.
25. De Boeck P, Wilson M, Scott Acton G. A conceptual and psychometric framework for distinguishing categories and dimensions. Psychol Rev 2005; 112:129-158. This presents a fundamental analysis of the logical and statistical considerations underlying the debate of whether psychiatric diagnoses are 'category-like' or 'dimension-like'. The conclusion is that being 'category-like' is a matter of degree. To provide a broad conceptual basis for the argument, the authors describe a methodological framework, illustrated with examples of its application to personality disorders, stages of cognitive development, and attitudes to capital punishment.
26. Robins E, Guze SB. Establishment of diagnostic validity in psychiatric illness: its application to schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 1970; 126:983-987.
27. Kendler KS. Toward a scientific psychiatric nosology: strengths and limitations. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1990; 47:969-973.
28. Kendell R, Jablensky A. Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160:4-12.
29. First MB, Pincus HA, Levine JB, et al. Clinical utility as a criterion for revising psychiatric diagnoses. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161:946-954. The authors present a discussion of clinical utility as a criterion to be considered in future revisions of DSM.
30. Borsboom D, van Heerden J. The concept of validity. Psychol Rev 2004; 111:1061-1071. This is a provocative reexamination of the concept of validity in psychological research, with relevant implications for the definition of diagnostic entities in psychiatry.