The reliability and validity of traditional taxonomies are limited by arbitrary boundaries between psychopathology and normality, often unclear boundaries between disorders, frequent disorder co-occurrence, heterogeneity within disorders, and diagnostic instability. These taxonomies went beyond evidence available on the structure of psychopathology and were shaped by a variety of other considerations, which may explain the aforementioned shortcomings. The Hierarchical Taxonomy Of Psychopathology (HiTOP) model has emerged as a research effort to address these problems. It constructs psychopathological syndromes and their components/subtypes based on the observed covariation of symptoms, grouping related symptoms together and thus reducing heterogeneity. It also combines co-occurring syndromes into spectra, thereby mapping out comorbidity. Moreover, it characterizes these phenomena dimensionally, which addresses boundary problems and diagnostic instability. Here, we review the development of the HiTOP and the relevant evidence. The new classification already covers most forms of psychopathology. Dimensional measures have been developed to assess many of the identified components, syndromes, and spectra. Several domains of this model are ready for clinical and research applications. The HiTOP promises to improve research and clinical practice by addressing the aforementioned shortcomings of traditional nosologies. It also provides an effective way to summarize and convey information on risk factors, etiology, pathophysiology, phenomenology, illness course, and treatment response. This can greatly improve the utility of the diagnosis of mental disorders. The new classification remains a work in progress. However, it is developing rapidly and is poised to advance mental health research and care significantly as the relevant science matures.

No abstract

Theory and research have suggested that the personality disorders contained within the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) can be understood as maladaptive variants of the personality traits included within the five-factor model (FFM). The current meta-analysis of FFM personality disorder research both replicated and extended the 2004 work of Saulsman and Page (The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055-1085) through a facet-level analysis that provides a more specific and nuanced description of each DSM-IV-TR personality disorder. The empirical FFM profiles generated for each personality disorder were generally congruent at the facet level with hypothesized FFM translations of the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders. However, notable exceptions to the hypotheses did occur and even some findings that were consistent with FFM theory could be said to be instrument specific. KeywordsFFM; personality disorder; dimensional; meta-analysis; DSM; MCMI Personality disorders are currently conceptualized within the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR; APA, 2000) as "qualitatively distinct clinical syndromes" (p. 689) such that they are distinct from one another and from normal personality. However, researchers have increasingly noted the limitations of this categorical system (Clark, 2005(Clark, , 2007Krueger, Markon, Patrick, & Iacono, 2005;Livesley, 2003;Trull & Durrett, 2005;Watson, 2005;Widiger & Samuel, 2005) and have suggested alternative dimensional models of personality disorder (Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press;Livesley, 2003;Shedler & Westen, 2004;. One such alternative is to integrate the classification of personality disorder with a dimensional model of general personality structure, such as the five-factor model (FFM;Widiger & Trull, 2007).The FFM has its historical roots in a lexical paradigm, which posits that all trait terms that are important for describing the personality functioning of oneself and others will have been Please address correspondence regarding this article to Douglas B. Samuel via email dsamuel@uky.edu, phone 1 (859) 230-3829, fax 1 (859) 323-1979, or postal mail at 116 Kastle Hall, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptClin Psychol Rev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 December 1. Published in f...

The question of whether mental disorders are discrete clinical conditions or arbitrary distinctions along dimensions of functioning is a long-standing issue, but its importance is escalating with the growing recognition of the frustrations and limitations engendered by the categorical model. The authors provide an overview of some of the dilemmas of the categorical model, followed by a discussion of research that addresses whether mental disorders are accurately or optimally classified categorically or dimensionally. The authors' intention is to document the importance of this issue and to suggest that future editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders give more recognition to dimensional models of classification. They conclude with a dimensional mental disorder classification that they suggest provides a useful model.

Shortcomings of approaches to classifying psychopathology based on expert consensus have given rise to contemporary efforts to classify psychopathology quantitatively. In this paper, we review progress in achieving a quantitative and empirical classification of psychopathology. A substantial empirical literature indicates that psychopathology is generally more dimensional than categorical. When the discreteness versus continuity of psychopathology is treated as a research question, as opposed to being decided as a matter of tradition, the evidence clearly supports the hypothesis of continuity. In addition, a related body of literature shows how psychopathology dimensions can be arranged in a hierarchy, ranging from very broad "spectrum level" dimensions, to specific and narrow clusters of symptoms. In this way, a quantitative approach solves the "problem of comorbidity" by explicitly modeling patterns of co-occurrence among signs and symptoms within a detailed and variegated hierarchy of dimensional concepts with direct clinical utility. Indeed, extensive evidence pertaining to the dimensional and hierarchical structure of psychopathology has led to the formation of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) Consortium. This is a group of 70 investigators working together to study empirical classification of psychopathology. In this paper, we describe the aims and current foci of the HiTOP Consortium. These aims pertain to continued research on the empirical organization of psychopathology; the connection between personality and psychopathology; the utility of empirically based psychopathology constructs in both research and the clinic; and the development of novel and comprehensive models and corresponding assessment instruments for psychopathology constructs derived from an empirical approach.