Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:33:34.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français
Accepted manuscript

Psychiatry’s New Validity Crisis: The Problem of Disparate Validation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2024

Nicholas Zautra
Nicholas Zautra*
Affiliation:
Indiana University Bloomington, Cognitive Science Program. 1001 E. 10th St., Bloomington, IN 47405
*
*To contact the author, please write to: nzautra@iu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In response to the DSM’s crisis in validity, psychiatry has seen a proliferation of alternative research frameworks (HiTOP, the Network Approach, RDoC) for studying and classifying psychiatric disorders. In this paper, I argue the existence of multiple frameworks in which each employs their own standards of validity is problematic methodologically speaking for trying to do any kind of unified validation work. Fundamental disagreements concerning the underlying phenomenon, sources of validating evidence, and the very nature of validity move each framework into an unrecognized plurality. The consequence for psychiatry is a new validity crisis.

Type
Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Accepted manuscript , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Philosophy of Science Association

Footnotes

§

I would like to thank Peter Zachar and the anonymous referees for their detailed comments on the article. This article also benefited greatly from feedback from Kirk Ludwig, Dan Kennedy, Gary Ebbs, Jordi Cat, Evan Arnet, Siyu Yao, Dan Li, and participants of the 2024 Philosophy of Social Science Roundtable and of the 2024 Association for the Advancement of Philosophy and Psychiatry Meeting.