Answering Questions About the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): Analogies to Whales and Sharks Miss the Boat

Author:

DeYoung Colin G.1,Kotov Roman23ORCID,Krueger Robert F.1,Cicero David C.4,Conway Christopher C.5ORCID,Eaton Nicholas R.23,Forbes Miriam K.6ORCID,Hallquist Michael N.7ORCID,Jonas Katherine G.23,Latzman Robert D.8ORCID,Rodriguez-Seijas Craig9ORCID,Ruggero Camilo J.4,Simms Leonard J.10,Waldman Irwin D.11,Waszczuk Monika A.12ORCID,Widiger Thomas A.13,Wright Aidan G. C.14ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota

2. Department of Psychiatry, Stony Brook University

3. Department of Psychology, Stony Brook University

4. Department of Psychology, University of North Texas

5. Department of Psychology, Fordham University

6. Centre for Emotional Health, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University

7. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

8. Department of Psychology, Georgia State University

9. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan

10. Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo

11. Department of Psychology, Emory University

12. Department of Psychology, Rosalind Franklin University

13. Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky

14. Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh

Abstract

In this commentary, we discuss questions and misconceptions about the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) raised by Haeffel et al. We explain what the system classifies and why it is descriptive and atheoretical, and we highlight benefits and limitations of this approach. We clarify why the system is organized according to patterns of covariation or comorbidity among signs and symptoms of psychopathology, and we discuss how it is designed to be falsifiable and revised in a manner that is responsive to data. We refer to the body of evidence for HiTOP’s external validity and for its scientific and clinical utility. We further describe how the system is currently used in clinics. In sum, many of Haeffel et al.’s concerns about HiTOP are unwarranted, and for those concerns that reflect real current limitations of HiTOP, our consortium is working to address them, with the aim of creating a nosology that is comprehensive and useful to both scientists and clinicians.

Funder

National Institute of Mental Health

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Clinical Psychology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3