Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Feb;15(1):26-31.
doi: 10.1002/wps.20284.

Psychiatric classifications: validity and utility

Affiliations

Psychiatric classifications: validity and utility

Assen Jablensky. World Psychiatry. 2016 Feb.

Abstract

Despite historical assumptions to the contrary, there is little evidence that the majority of recognized mental disorders are separated by natural boundaries. Diagnostic categories defined by their clinical syndromes should be regarded as 'valid' only if they have been shown to be truly discrete entities. Most diagnostic concepts in psychiatry have not been demonstrated to be valid in this sense, though many possess 'utility' by virtue of the information they convey about presenting symptoms, outcome, treatment response and, in some instances, aetiology. While researchers in genetics, neurobiology and population epidemiology are increasingly more likely to adopt a continuum/dimensional view of the variation in symptomatology, clinicians prefer to hold on to the categorical approach embodied in current classifications such as ICD-10 and DSM-5. Both points of view have plausible justification in their respective contexts, but the way forward may be in their conceptual reconciliation.

Keywords: DSM; ICD; Psychiatric diagnosis; psychiatric classification; utility; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical remarks. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
    1. Kraepelin E. Patterns of mental disorder In: Hirsch SR, Shepherd M. (eds). Themes and variations in European psychiatry. Bristol: Wright, 1974/1920:7‐30.
    1. Jablensky A, Kendell RE. Criteria for assessing a classification in psychiatry In: Maj M, Gaebel W, López‐Ibor JJ. et al (eds). Psychiatric diagnosis and classification. Chichester: Wiley, 2002:1‐24.
    1. Scadding JG. Essentialism and nominalism in medicine: logic of diagnosis in disease terminology. Lancet 1996;348:594‐6. - PubMed
    1. Rosch E. Cognitive reference points. Cogn Psychol 1975;7:532‐47.

LinkOut - more resources