Article contents
Symptom networks and psychiatric categories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 June 2010
Abstract
The network approach to psychiatric phenomena has the potential to clarify and enhance psychiatric diagnosis and classification. However, its generally well-justified anti-essentialism views psychiatric disorders as invariably fuzzy and arbitrary, and overlooks the likelihood that the domain includes some latent categories. Network models misrepresent these categories, and fail to recognize that some comorbidity may represent valid co-occurrence of discrete conditions.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010
References
Craver, C. F. (2009) Mechanisms and natural kinds. Philosophical Psychology
22:575–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, N. (2002) Kinds of kinds: A conceptual taxonomy of psychiatric categories. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology
9:203–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslam, N. (2003) Categorical vs. dimensional models of mental disorder: The taxometric evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
37:696–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, S. E. (2010) The diagnosis of mental disorders: The problem of reification. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
6:155–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meehl, P. E. (1995) Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist
50:266–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meehl, P. E. (2001) Comorbidity and taxometrics. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
8:507–19.Google Scholar
Persons, J. B. (1986) The advantages of studying psychological phenomena rather than psychiatric diagnoses. American Psychologist
41:1252–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schweinberger, M. & Snijders, T. A. B. (2003) Settings in social networks: A measurement model. Sociological Methodology
33:307–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldman, I. D. & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2001) Applications of taxometric methods to problems of comorbidity: Perspectives and challenges. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
8:520–27.Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by