Do We Need a Novel Framework for Classifying Psychopathology? A Discussion Paper

Authors

  • Winfried Rief Orcid
    Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy Group, Department of Psychology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
  • Stefan G. Hofmann Orcid
    Translational Clinical Psychology Group, Department of Psychology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
  • Max Berg Orcid
    Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy Group, Department of Psychology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
  • Miriam K. Forbes Orcid
    School of Psychological Sciences, Australian Hearing Hub, Macquarie University Sydney, Sydney, Australia
  • Diego A. Pizzagalli Orcid
    Department of Psychiatry, Center for Depression, Anxiety and Stress Research & McLean Imaging Center, McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Belmont, MA, USA
  • Johannes Zimmermann Orcid
    Department of Psychology, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany
  • Eiko Fried Orcid
    Clinical Psychology Group, Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Geoffrey M. Reed Orcid
    Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA

Abstract

Introduction: The ICD-11 and DSM-5 are the leading systems for the classification of mental disorders, and their relevance for clinical work and research, as well as their impact for policy making and legal questions, has increased considerably. In recent years, other frameworks have been proposed to supplement or even replace the ICD and the DSM, raising many questions regarding clinical utility, scientific relevance, and, at the core, how best to conceptualize mental disorders. Method: As examples of the new approaches that have emerged, here we introduce the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), systems and network approaches, process-based approaches, as well as a new approach to the classification of personality disorders. Results and Discussion: We highlight main distinctions between these classification frameworks, largely related to different priorities and goals, and discuss areas of overlap and potential compatibility. Synergies among these systems may provide promising new avenues for research and clinical practice.

Most read articles by the same author(s)