Spencer C Evans1, Michael C Roberts2, Jessy Guler2, Jared W Keeley3, Geoffrey M Reed4,5. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA. 2. Clinical Child Psychology Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, USA. 5. Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: One strategy for improving the clinical utility of mental health diagnostic systems is to better align them with how clinicians conceptualize psychopathology in practice. This approach was used in International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) development, but its underlying assumption-a link between taxonomic "fit" and clinical utility-remains untested. METHODS: Using data from global mental health clinician samples (combined N = 5404), we investigated the association between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder categories. RESULTS: The overall association between fit and utility was positive (r = 0.19) but statistically not different from zero (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06, 0.43) in this small sample (N = 39 ICD/DSM categories). However, a positive association became clear after correcting for outliers (r = 0.34 [0.05, 0.58] or higher). Further insights were apparent for specific diagnoses given their locations in the scatterplot. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a positive link between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder diagnoses, highlighting future research directions.
OBJECTIVE: One strategy for improving the clinical utility of mental health diagnostic systems is to better align them with how clinicians conceptualize psychopathology in practice. This approach was used in International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11) development, but its underlying assumption-a link between taxonomic "fit" and clinical utility-remains untested. METHODS: Using data from global mental health clinician samples (combined N = 5404), we investigated the association between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder categories. RESULTS: The overall association between fit and utility was positive (r = 0.19) but statistically not different from zero (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.06, 0.43) in this small sample (N = 39 ICD/DSM categories). However, a positive association became clear after correcting for outliers (r = 0.34 [0.05, 0.58] or higher). Further insights were apparent for specific diagnoses given their locations in the scatterplot. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a positive link between taxonomic fit and clinical utility in mental disorder diagnoses, highlighting future research directions.
Authors: Michael B First; Harold Alan Pincus; John B Levine; Janet B W Williams; Bedirhan Ustun; Roger Peele Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Thomas Insel; Bruce Cuthbert; Marjorie Garvey; Robert Heinssen; Daniel S Pine; Kevin Quinn; Charles Sanislow; Philip Wang Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Geoffrey M Reed; Michael C Roberts; Jared Keeley; Catherine Hooppell; Chihiro Matsumoto; Pratap Sharan; Rebeca Robles; Hudson Carvalho; Chunyan Wu; Oye Gureje; Itzear Leal-Leturia; Elizabeth H Flanagan; João Mendonça Correia; Toshimasa Maruta; José Luís Ayuso-Mateos; Jair de Jesus Mari; Zeping Xiao; Spencer C Evans; Shekhar Saxena; María Elena Medina-Mora Journal: J Clin Psychol Date: 2013-10-07
Authors: Geoffrey M Reed; Jared W Keeley; Tahilia J Rebello; Michael B First; Oye Gureje; José Luis Ayuso-Mateos; Shigenobu Kanba; Brigitte Khoury; Cary S Kogan; Valery N Krasnov; Mario Maj; Jair de Jesus Mari; Pratap Sharan; Dan J Stein; Min Zhao; Tsuyoshi Akiyama; Howard F Andrews; Elson Asevedo; Majda Cheour; Tecelli Domínguez-Martínez; Joseph El-Khoury; Andrea Fiorillo; Jean Grenier; Nitin Gupta; Lola Kola; Maya Kulygina; Itziar Leal-Leturia; Mario Luciano; Bulumko Lusu; J Nicolás I Martínez-López; Chihiro Matsumoto; Mayokun Odunleye; Lucky Umukoro Onofa; Sabrina Paterniti; Shivani Purnima; Rebeca Robles; Manoj K Sahu; Goodman Sibeko; Na Zhong; Wolfgang Gaebel; Anne M Lovell; Toshimasa Maruta; Kathleen M Pike; Michael C Roberts; María Elena Medina-Mora Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Michael B First; Wolfgang Gaebel; Mario Maj; Dan J Stein; Cary S Kogan; John B Saunders; Vladimir B Poznyak; Oye Gureje; Roberto Lewis-Fernández; Andreas Maercker; Chris R Brewin; Marylene Cloitre; Angelica Claudino; Kathleen M Pike; Gillian Baird; David Skuse; Richard B Krueger; Peer Briken; Jeffrey D Burke; John E Lochman; Spencer C Evans; Douglas W Woods; Geoffrey M Reed Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Graeme Fairchild; David J Hawes; Paul J Frick; William E Copeland; Candice L Odgers; Barbara Franke; Christine M Freitag; Stephane A De Brito Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Jared W Keeley; Geoffrey M Reed; Michael C Roberts; Spencer C Evans; María Elena Medina-Mora; Rebeca Robles; Tahilia Rebello; Pratap Sharan; Oye Gureje; Michael B First; Howard F Andrews; José Luís Ayuso-Mateos; Wolfgang Gaebel; Juergen Zielasek; Shekhar Saxena Journal: Am Psychol Date: 2016-01