New Dimensions in the Quantitative Classification of Mental Illness

Abstract

We confirmed the validity of the 3 previously found spectra in an outpatient population. We also found novel somatoform and antagonism dimensions, which this investigation was able to detect because, to our knowledge, this is the first study to include a variety of somatoform and personality disorders. The findings suggest that many PDs can be placed in Axis I with related clinical disorders. They also suggest that unipolar depression may be better placed with anxiety disorders than with bipolar disorders. The emerging quantitative nosology promises to provide a more useful guide to clinicians and researchers.

Brain Regions Associated With Internalizing and Externalizing Psychiatric Symptoms in Patients With Penetrating Traumatic Brain Injury

“…1 There is a growing body of evidence, however, that a factor structure underlies, and can cut across, DSM diagnoses. [2][3][4] It has been hypothesized, but not yet tested, that these factors underlying DSM diagnoses will be more closely associated with the neuroanatomical bases of psychiatric symptoms than DSM diagnosis. In the current study, we determined the factor structure of psychopathology underlying the DSM diagnoses of 199 Vietnam War veterans who suffered penetrating brain injuries and 55 matched control participants.…”

“…[2][3][4] There is not exact agreement about the underlying factor structure of psychiatric illnesses; however, a five-factor model 3 derived from Structured Clinical Interviews (SCIDs) with a large group of patients with axis I and II diagnoses has been replicated and demonstrated reliability and validity. 4,9 The factors, and the categorical disorders they encompass, are internalizing (anxiety and eating disorders, major depressive disorder, and borderline, paranoid, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders), externalizing (substance use disorders and antisocial personality disorders), thought disorder (psychosis, mania, and paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal personality disorders), somatoform (somatoform disorders), and antagonism (paranoid, antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic personality disorders).…”

Problem behaviours and symptom dimensions of psychiatric disorders in adults with intellectual disabilities: An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

“…The weak relationship between categorical diagnoses and clinical outcomes is recognised as an important limitation to the clinical utility of categorical diagnoses. However, categorical diagnoses make a useful contribution to communication with service users and between health professionals (Kendell & Jablensky, 2003), so dimensional models are best considered as complementary, rather than an alternative, to categorical diagnoses (Kotov et al, 2011). Using dimensional models alongside categorical diagnoses may provide more accurate information on prognosis, and facilitate clinical decision making about management.…”

Long-Term Outcomes in Borderline Psychopathology: Old Assumptions, Current Findings, and New Directions

“…Although the final version of the BPD diagnosis has not yet been determined for DSM-5, it does appear that both trait ratings and functioning ratings will be integrated into the BPD diagnosis. Divisions on the Axis I/II boundary are still being debated at this time, though there is evidence that suggests broader psychopathological dimensions cut across Axis I/II [47].…”