Christopher J. Hopwood , Leslie C. Morey , Kristian E. Markon
{"title":"What is a psychopathology dimension?","authors":"Christopher J. Hopwood , Leslie C. Morey , Kristian E. Markon","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Coherence in the science and practice of mental health assessment depends upon a tight connection between psychopathology concepts that are used and the way those concepts are operationalized and defined. In contrast, the use of the same word to mean more than one thing contributes to incoherence, inefficiency, and confusion. In this paper, we review three possible meanings of the word “dimension” as it relates to the assessment of psychopathology and describe how the indiscriminate use of this word has caused confusion in the general context of the transition to a more evidence-based approach to mental health diagnosis. We attempt to disambiguate the term “dimension” by demarcating three concepts that can be distinguished based on different empirical standards: continuous variables, unidimensional dimensions, and distinct dimensions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001149/pdfft?md5=bd5ba066f74b99371bd03960aeb08b90&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735823001149-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001149","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Coherence in the science and practice of mental health assessment depends upon a tight connection between psychopathology concepts that are used and the way those concepts are operationalized and defined. In contrast, the use of the same word to mean more than one thing contributes to incoherence, inefficiency, and confusion. In this paper, we review three possible meanings of the word “dimension” as it relates to the assessment of psychopathology and describe how the indiscriminate use of this word has caused confusion in the general context of the transition to a more evidence-based approach to mental health diagnosis. We attempt to disambiguate the term “dimension” by demarcating three concepts that can be distinguished based on different empirical standards: continuous variables, unidimensional dimensions, and distinct dimensions.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
