Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current Directions in Psychiatric Classification: From the DSM to RDoC

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Personality and Brain Disorders

Part of the book series: Contemporary Clinical Neuroscience ((CCNE))

Abstract

In 2010, the National Institute of Mental Health initiated the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), a new research framework for studying mental disorders. The RDoC is predicated on that psychiatric disorders are fundamentally disorders of the brain, which are best conceptualized as dimensional, and not discrete, phenomena. The RDoC approach stands in contrast to the more traditional Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which relies on discrete diagnostic categories such that patients either meet diagnostic criteria or not. The present chapter has three explicit aims: (a) to describe the conceptualization of personality disorders (PDs) from DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Author, Washington, DC, 1980) and forward, including the differences between categorical and dimensional models of psychopathology; (b) to present some of the fundamental differences between the DSM-5 and RDoC perspectives; and (c) to describe challenges for the RDoC framework along with a possible alternative to it, namely, the network approach to psychological disorders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. M., & Miller, M. B. (2010). How reliable are the results from functional magnetic resonance imaging? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 133–155.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blashfield, R. K. (1984). The classification of psychopathology: Neo-Kraepelinian and quantitative approaches. New York, NY: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blashfield, R. K., Keeley, J. W., Flanagan, E. H., & Miles, S. R. (2014). The cycle of classification: DSM-I through DSM-5. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 25–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., & Cramer, A. O. (2013). Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91–121.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O., Schmittmann, V. D., Epskamp, S., & Waldorp, L. J. (2011). The small world of psychopathology. PLoS One, 6, e27407.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., Kievit, R. A., Cervone, D., & Hood, S. B. (2009). The two disciplines of scientific psychology, or: The disunity of psychology as a working hypothesis. In J. Valsiner, P. C. M. Molenaar, M. C. D. P. Lyra, & N. Chaudhary (Eds.), Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 97–67). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110, 203–219.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061–1071.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., Rhemtulla, M., Cramer, A., Van der Maas, H., Scheffer, M., & Dolan, C. (2016). Kinds versus continua: A review of psychometric approaches to uncover the structure of psychiatric constructs. Psychological Medicine, 46, 1567–1579.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carcone, D., & Ruocco, A. C. (2017). Six years of research on the national institute of mental health’s research domain criteria (RDoC) initiative: A systematic review. Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, 11(46), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J., Harrington, H., Israel, S., … Moffitt, T. E. (2014). The p factor: one general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2(2), 119–137.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. New York, NY: World Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicchetti, D., & Blender, J. A. (2004). A multiple-levels-of-analysis approach to the study of developmental processes in maltreated children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 17325–17326.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2009). The past achievements and future promises of developmental psychopathology: The coming of age of a discipline. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 16–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants: A proposal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573–588.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, C. C., Latzman, R. D., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). A meta-structural model of common clinical disorder and personality disorder symptoms. Journal of Personality Disorders. Advance online publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, L. D., Balsis, S., & Zimmerman, M. (2010). Challenges associated with a polythetic diagnostic system: Criteria combinations in the personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 886–895.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S. R., Jackson, J. J., Barch, D. M., & Braver, T. S. (2019). Neuroimaging of individual differences: A latent variable modeling perspective. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 98, 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2017). The NEO inventories as instruments of psychological theory. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 11–37). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Borsboom, D. (2010). Comorbidity: A network perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 137–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09991567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2010). The data of diagnosis: New approaches to psychiatric classification. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 73, 311–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2013). Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: The seven pillars of RDOC. BMC Medicine, 11, 126.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbert, B. N., & Kozak, M. J. (2013). Constructing constructs for psychopathology: The NIMH research domain criteria. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 928–937.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the big five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138–1151.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Enkavi, A. Z., Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Mazza, G. L., MacKinnon, D. P., Marsch, L. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2019). Large-scale analysis of test–retest reliabilities of self-regulation measures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 5472–5477.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. on predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1097–1126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1947). Dimensions of personality. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • First, M. B. (2014). Empirical grounding versus innovation in the DSM-5 revision process: Implications for the future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 21, 262–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frances, A. (2009). A warning sign on the road to DSM-V: Beware of its unintended consequences. Psychiatric Times, 26, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, E. I., & Cramer, A. O. J. (2017). Moving forward: Challenges and directions for psychopathological network theory and methodology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 999–1020.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L., Stern, H., Brown, G. G., Mathalon, D. H., Turner, J., Glover, G. H., … Greve, D. N. (2008). Test–retest and between-site reliability in a multicenter fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 29(8), 958–972.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gottesman, I. I., & Gould, T. D. (2003). The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: Etymology and strategic intentions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 636–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grucza, R. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, informant reports, and clinical indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 167–187.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, J. G. (2013). Seeking clarity for future revisions of the personality disorders in DSM-5. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 368–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajcak, G., Meyer, A., & Kotov, R. (2017). Psychometrics and the neuroscience of individual differences: Internal consistency limits between-subjects effects. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 823–834.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., Holland, E., & Kuppens, P. (2012). Categories versus dimensions in personality and psychopathology: A quantitative review of taxometric research. Psychological Medicine, 42, 903–920.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1166–1186.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hengartner, M., Ajdacic-Gross, V., Wyss, C., Angst, J., & Rössler, W. (2016). Relationship between personality and psychopathology in a longitudinal community study: A test of the predisposition model. Psychological Medicine, 46, 1693–1705.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., Wright, A. G., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). DSM-5 personality traits and DSM-IV personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 424–432.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Huettel, S. A., Song, A. W., & McCarthy, G. (2009). Functional magnetic resonance imaging. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Sunderland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, W. G., Malone, S. M., & Vrieze, S. I. (2017). Endophenotype best practices. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 111, 115–144.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Insel, T. R., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., … Wang, P. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendler, K. S., Aggen, S., Gillespie, N., Neale, M., Knudsen, G., Krueger, R. F., … Reichborn-Kjennerud, T. (2017). The genetic and environmental sources of resemblance between normative personality and personality disorder traits. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31, 193–207.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., et al. (2017). The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HITOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 454–477.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kozak, M. J., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2016). The NIMH research domain criteria initiative: Background, issues, and pragmatics. Psychophysiology, 53, 286–297.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. F. (2013). Personality disorders are the vanguard of the post-DSM-5.0 era. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 355–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. F., Kotov, R., Watson, D., Forbes, M. K., Eaton, N. R., Ruggero, C. J., … Bagby, R. M. (2018). Progress in achieving quantitative classification of psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 17, 282–293.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2014). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014a). DSM-5: Centripetal scientific and centrifugal antiscientific forces. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 21, 269–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014b). The research domain criteria (RDoC): An analysis of methodological and conceptual challenges. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 62, 129–139.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., & Watts, A. L. (2013). Issues in diagnosis: Conceptual issues and controversies. In W. E. Craighead, D. J. Miklowitz, & L. W. Craighead (Eds.), Psychopathology: History, diagnosis, and empirical foundations (2nd ed., pp. 1–35). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., & Treadway, M. T. (2016). Clashing diagnostic approaches: DSM-ICD versus RDoC. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 435–463.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Livesley, J. (2012). Tradition versus empiricism in the current DSM-5 proposal for revising the classification of personality disorders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 22, 81–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1953). On the statistical treatment of football numbers. American Psychologist, 8, 750–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck, S. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luking, K. R., Nelson, B. D., Infantolino, Z. P., Sauder, C. L., & Hajcak, G. (2017). Internal consistency of functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography measures of reward in late childhood and early adolescence. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 2, 289–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markon, K. E. (2013). Epistemological pluralism and scientific development: an argument against authoritative nosologies. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(5), 554–579.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markon, K. E., Chmielewski, M., & Miller, C. J. (2011). The reliability and validity of discrete and continuous measures of psychopathology: A quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 856–879.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences in kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melchers, M., Montag, C., Markett, S., & Reuter, M. (2015). Assessment of empathy via self-report and behavioural paradigms: Data on convergent and discriminant validity. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 20(2), 157–171.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., Rockstroh, B. S., Hamilton, H. K., & Yee, C. M. (2016). Psychophysiology as a core strategy in RDoC. Psychophysiology, 53, 410–414.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2013). Missed opportunities in the DSM-5 Section III personality disorder model: Commentary on “Personality disorders are the vanguard of the post-DSM-5.0 era”. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 365–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar, P. C., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 112–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C., Krueger, R. F., & Skodol, A. E. (2013). The hierarchical structure of clinician ratings of proposed DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 836–841.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C., Skodol, A. E., & Oldham, J. M. (2014). Clinician judgments of clinical utility: A comparison of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and the alternative model for DSM-5 personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123, 398–405.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mõttus, R., Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., & McCrae, R. (2017). Personality traits below facets: The consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 474–490.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Lengel, G. J., & DeShong, H. L. (2016). The importance of considering clinical utility in the construction of a diagnostic manual. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 133–155.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the big one in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213–1233.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Mental Health. (2017). RDoC Matrix. Retrieved October 8, 2017, from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/rdoc/definitions-of-the-rdoc-domains-and-constructs.shtml

  • Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palminteri, S., & Chevallier, C. (2018). Can we infer inter-individual differences in risk-taking from behavioural tasks? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2307.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, C. J., Venables, N. C., Yancey, J. R., Hicks, B. M., Nelson, L. D., & Kramer, M. D. (2013). A construct-network approach to bridging diagnostic and physiological domains: Application to assessment of externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 902–916.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfohl, B., Coryell, W., Zimmerman, M., & Stangl, D. (1986). DSM-III personality disorders: Diagnostic overlap and internal consistency of individual DSM-III criteria. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 27, 21–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pincus, A. L. (2013). In through the out door: A commentary on “Personality disorders are the vanguard of the post-DSM-5.0 era”. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 363–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2005). Reminder: A horse is a horse. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, J. P., & Irwing, P. (2008). A general factor of personality (GFP) from two meta-analyses of the Big Five: Digman (1997) and Mount, Barrick, Scullen, and Rounds (2005). Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 679–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarter, M., Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Brain imaging and cognitive neuroscience: Toward strong inference in attributing function to structure. American Psychologist, 51, 13–21.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmittmann, V. D., Cramer, A. O., Waldorp, L. J., Epskamp, S., Kievit, R. A., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Deconstructing the construct: A network perspective on psychological phenomena. New Ideas in Psychology, 31, 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, L., Markon, K. E., & Clark, L. A. (2014). Toward a theory of distinct types of “impulsive” behaviors: A meta-analysis of self-report and behavioral measures. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 374–408.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skodol, A. E., Morey, L. C., Bender, D. S., & Oldham, J. M. (2013). The ironic fate of the personality disorders in DSM-5. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 342–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzer, R. L. (2009). DSM-V transparency: Fact or rhetoric? Psychiatric Times, 26, 8–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, T., Samuel, D. B., Pahlen, S., & Krueger, R. F. (2015). DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits as maladaptive extreme variants of the five-factor model: An item-response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 343–354.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tay, L., & Jebb, A. T. (2018). Establishing construct continua in construct validation: the process of continuum specification. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 375–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment, 20, 308–311.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trull, T. J., & Durrett, C. A. (2005). Categorical and dimensional models of personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 355–380.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vachon, D. D., Lynam, D. R., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). The (non) relation between empathy and aggression: Surprising results from a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 751–773.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vaidyanathan, U., Vrieze, S. I., & Iacono, W. G. (2015). The power of theory, research design, and transdisciplinary integration in moving psychopathology forward. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 209–230.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Verheul, R. (2012). Personality disorder proposal for DSM-5: A heroic and innovative but nevertheless fundamentally flawed attempt to improve DSM-IV. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 19, 369–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheul, R., & Widiger, T. A. (2004). A meta-analysis of the prevalence and usage of the personality disorder not otherwise specified (pdnos) diagnosis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 309–319.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, J. C. (2014). Wittgenstein’s nightmare: Why the RDoC grid needs a conceptual dimension. World Psychiatry, 13, 38–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2000). Toward DSM-V and the classification of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 946–963.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Crego, C. (2015). Process and content of DSM-5. Psychopathology Review, 2, 162–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Frances, A. (1985). The DSM-III personality disorders: Perspectives from psychology. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 615–623.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2009). Five-factor model of personality disorder: A proposal for DSM-V. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 197–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: Finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 110–130.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, A. G., Gates, K., Arizmendi, C., Lane, S., Woods, W., & Edershile, E. A. (2017). Focusing personality assessment on the person: Modeling general, shared, and person specific processes in personality and psychopathology. Retrieved from osf.io/nf5me

  • Wright, A. G., & Simms, L. J. (2014). On the structure of personality disorder traits: Conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personality Disorders, Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, G., Lareau, C., & Pierre, B. (2014). One quintillion ways to have PTSD comorbidity: Recommendations for the disordered DSM-5. Psychological Injury and Law, 7, 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zachar, P. (2013). Abandoning official psychiatric nosologies: A cure that may be worse than the disease: A commentary on Markon. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(5), 594–599.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zachar, P., & Kendler, K. S. (2017). The philosophy of nosology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 49–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zachar, P., Krueger, R. F., & Kendler, K. S. (2016). Personality disorder in DSM-5: An oral history. Psychological Medicine, 46, 1–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden

    Björn N. Persson

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

    Björn N. Persson

  3. Blekinge Center of Competence, Region Blekinge, Karlskrona, Sweden

    Björn N. Persson

Authors
  1. Björn N. Persson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Björn N. Persson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Blekinge Center for Competence, Region Blekinge, Karlskrona, Sweden

    Danilo Garcia

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Trevor Archer

  3. Department of Pharmacology, Quillen College of Medicine, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA

    Richard M. Kostrzewa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Persson, B.N. (2019). Current Directions in Psychiatric Classification: From the DSM to RDoC. In: Garcia, D., Archer, T., Kostrzewa, R.M. (eds) Personality and Brain Disorders. Contemporary Clinical Neuroscience. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90065-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation