On Validators for Psychiatric Categories

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2022.74

Keywords:

psychiatric diagnosis, psychiatric validator

Abstract

The concept of a “validator” as a unit of evidence for the validity of a psychiatric category has been important for more than fifty years. Validator evidence is aggregated by expert committees (for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), these are referred to as “workgroups”), which use the results to make nosological decisions. Through an examination of the recent history of psychiatric research, this paper argues that it is time to reassess this traditional practice. It concludes with specific suggestions for going forward.

References

American Psychiatric Association. 2022. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.

Ankeny, Rachel A. 2011. “Using Cases to Establish Novel Diagnoses: Creating Generic Facts by Making Particular Facts Travel Together.” In How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, edited by Peter Howlett and Mary S. Morgan, 253–272. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

APA DSM Team. 2021. “Guide to Submitting Proposals for Changes to DSM-5”. https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/DSM5-Proposal-Submissions-General-Guidance.pdf.

Ash, Philip. 1949. “The Reliability of Psychiatric Diagnosis.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 44, no. 2: 272–276.

Borsboom, Denny. 2017. “A Network Theory of Mental Disorders.” World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) 16, no. 1: 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20375.

Browne, Tamara Kayali. 2017. “A Role for Philosophers, Sociologists and Bioethicists in Revising the DSM: A Philosophical Case Conference.” Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 24, no. (3): 187–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2017.0024.

Cartwright, Nancy. 1989. Nature’s Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press.

Clark, Lee Anna, Bruce Cuthbert, Roberto Lewis-Fernández, William E. Narrow, and Geoffrey M. Reed. 2017. “Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC).” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 18, no. 2: 72–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100617727266.

Cooper, Rachel. 2015. “Why Is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders So Hard to Revise? Path-Dependence and ‘Lock-in’ in Classification.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 51: 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.03.001.

Craddock, Nick and Michael J. Owen. 2005. “The Beginning of the End for the Kraepelinian Dichotomy.” British Journal of Psychiatry 186, no. 5: 364–366. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.186.5.364.

———. 2010. “The Kraepelinian Dichotomy—Going, Going ... but Still Not Gone.” British Journal of Psychiatry 196, no. 2: 92–95. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.109.073429.

Decker, Hannah S. 2013. The Making of DSM-III: A Diagnostic Manual’s Conquest of American Psychiatry. New York: Oxford University Press.

Engstrom, Eric J. and Kenneth S. Kendler. 2015. “Emil Kraepelin: Icon and Reality.” American Journal of Psychiatry 172, no. 12: 1190–1196. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15050665.

Feighner, J.P., E. Robins, S.B. Guze, R.A. Woodruff, G. Winokur, and R. Muñoz. 1972. “Diagnostic Criteria for Use in Psychiatric Research.” Archives of General Psychiatry 26, no. 1: 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1972.01750190059011.

First, Michael B. 2010. “Clinical Utility in the Revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 41, no. 6: 465–473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021511.

First, Michael B., Harold Alan Pincus, John B. Levine, Janet B.W. Williams, Bedirhan Ustun, and Roger Peele. 2004. “Clinical Utility as a Criterion for Revising Psychiatric Diagnoses.” American Journal of Psychiatry 161, no. 6: 946–954. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.6.946.

Frances, Allen. 2010. “Should Practical Consequences Influence DSM5 Decisions? Yes, of Course.” Psychiatric Times, 28 April. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/should-practical-consequences-influence-dsm5-decisions-yes-course.

Guze, Samuel. B. 1970. “The Need for Toughmindedness in Psychiatric Thinking.” Southern Medical Journal 63, no. 6: 662–671. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-197006000-00012.

Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyman, Steven. 2010. “The Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: The Problem of Reification.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 6, no. 1: 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091532.

Insel, Thomas, Bruce Cuthbert, Marjorie Garvey, Robert Heinssen, Daniel S. Pine, Kevin Quinn, Charles Stanislow, and Philip Wang. 2010. “Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Toward a New Classification Framework for Research on Mental Disorders”. American Journal of Psychiatry 167, no. 7: 748–751. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379.

Kendell, Robert and Assen Jablensky. 2003. “Distinguishing between the Validity and Utility of Psychiatric Diagnoses.” American Journal of Psychiatry 160, no. 1: 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.4.

Kendler, Kenneth S. 1980. “The Nosologic Validity of Paranoia (Simple Delusional Disorder): A Review.” Archives of General Psychiatry 37, no. 6: 699–706. https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHPSYC.1980.01780190097012.

———. 1990. “Toward a Scientific Psychiatric Nosology.” Archives of General Psychiatry 47, no. 10: 969–973. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810220085011.

———. 2012. “The Dappled Nature of Causes of Psychiatric Illness: Replacing the Organic-Functional/Hardware-Software Dichotomy with Empirically Based Pluralism.” Molecular Psychiatry 17, no. 4: 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2011.182.

———. 2013a. “Epistemic Iteration as a Historical Model for Psychiatric Nosology: Promises and Limitations.” In Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry II: Nosology, edited by Kenneth S. Kendler and Josef Parnas. Online edition, Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199642205.003.0044.

———. 2013b. “A History of the DSM-5 Scientific Review Committee.” Psychological Medicine 43, no. 9: 1793–1800. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291713001578.

———. 2015. “Introduction to ‘Pluralism, Incommensurability, and Scientific Change.’” In Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry III: The Nature and Sources of Historical Change, edited by Kenneth S. Kendler and Josef Parnas. Online edition, Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198725978.003.0001.

———. 2016. “The Nature of Psychiatric Disorders.” World Psychiatry 15, no. 1: 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20292.

———. 2017. “DSM Disorders and Their Criteria: How Should They Inter-Relate?” Psychological Medicine 47, no. 12: 2054–2060. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291717000678.

Kendler, Kenneth S., Rodrigo. A. Muñoz, and George Murphy. 2010. “The Development of the Feighner Criteria: A Historical Perspective.” American Journal of Psychiatry 167, no. 2: 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09081155.

Kendler, Kenneth S. and Miriam Solomon. 2016. “Expert Consensus v. Evidence-Based Approaches in the Revision of the DSM.” Psychological Medicine 46, no. 11: 2255–2262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171600074X.

Kotov, Roman, Robert F. Krueger, David Watson, Thomas M. Achenbach, Robert R. Althoff, R. Michael Bagby, Timothy A. Brown, et al. 2017. “The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A Dimensional Alternative to Traditional Nosologies.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 126, no. 4: 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000258.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Phillips, James. 2013. “The Conceptual Status of DSM-5 Diagnoses.” In Making the DSM-5: Concepts and Controversies, edited by Joel Paris and James Phillips, 143–157. New York: Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6504-1_10.

Rajakannan, Thiyagu, Daniel J. Safer, Mehmet Burcu, and Julie Magno Zito. 2016. “National Trends in Psychiatric Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) Diagnosis and Medication Use among Adults in Outpatient Treatment.” Psychiatric Services 67, no. 3: 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201500045.

Robins, Eli and Samuel B. Guze. 1970. “Establishment of Diagnostic Validity in Psychiatric Illness: Its Application to Schizophrenia.” American Journal of Psychiatry 126, no. 7: 983–987. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.126.7.983.

Sadler, John Z. and Bill Fulford. 2004. “Should Patients and Their Families Contribute to the

DSM-V Process?” Psychiatric Services 55, no. 2: 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.55.2.133.

Schaffner, Kenneth F. 2012. “A Philosophical Overview of the Problems of Validity for Psychiatric Disorders.” In Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry II: Nosology, edited by Kenneth S. Kendler and Josef Parnas, 169–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2020. “A Comparison of Two Neurobiological Models of Fear and Anxiety: A ‘Construct Validity’ Application?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 15, no. 5: 1214–1227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620920860.

Solomon, Miriam. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

———. 2012. “Socially Responsible Science and the Unity of Values. ” Perspectives on Science 20, no. 3: 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00069.

———. 2015. Making Medical Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Solomon, Miriam and Kenneth S. Kendler. 2021. "The Problem of Aggregating Validators for Psychiatric Disorders." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 209, no. 1:9–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/nmd.0000000000001256.

Stegenga, Jacob. 2011. “Is Meta-Analysis the Platinum Standard of Evidence?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42, no. 4: 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.07.003.

Stein, Dan J. and Katharine A. Phillips. 2013. “Patient Advocacy and DSM-5.” BMC Medicine 11, no. 1, 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-133.

Sterzer, Philipp, Rick A. Adams, Paul Fletcher, Chris Frith, Stephen M. Lawrie, Lars Muckli, Predrag Petrovic, Peter Uhlhaas, Martin Voss, and Philip R. Corlett. 2018. “The Predictive Coding Account of Psychosis.” Biological Psychiatry 84, no. 9: 634–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.05.015.

Sweeney, Melanie D., Abhay P. Sagare, and Berislav V. Zlokovic. 2015. “Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers of Neurovascular Dysfunction in Mild Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease.” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism 35, no. 7: 1055–1068. https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.2015.76.

Tekin, Şerife. 2011. “Self-Concept through the Diagnostic Looking Glass: Narratives and Mental Disorder.” Philosophical Psychology 24, no. 3: 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.559622.

Woodward, James. 2005. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wykes, Til, Josep Maria Haro, Stefano R. Belli, Carla Obradors-Tarragó, Celso Arango, José Luis Ayuso-Mateos, István Bitter, et al. 2015. “Mental Health Research Priorities for Europe.” The Lancet Psychiatry 2, no. 11: 1036–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00332-6.

Yager, Joel and John S. Mcintyre. 2014. “DSM-5 Clinical and Public Health Committee: Challenges and Considerations.” American Journal of Psychiatry 171, no. 2: 142–144. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13030347.

Zachar, Peter, Michael B. First, and Kenneth S. Kendler. 2020. “The DSM-5 Proposal for Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome: A History.” Psychological Medicine 50, no. 6: 920–926. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291720000653.

Downloads

Published

2022-12-02

How to Cite

Solomon, M. (2022). On Validators for Psychiatric Categories. Philosophy of Medicine, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2022.74

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022)

Section

Original Research Articles (philosophy of psychiatry)

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Miriam Solomon

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
  9. The Author agrees to digitally sign the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work.

Funding data