Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Allameh Tabataba'i University

Abstract

The classification of mental disorders has long been the subject of controversy among mental health professionals. Despite a Significant expansion of knowledge about mental disorders during the past half century, understanding of their processes and components remains rudimentary. This article provides descriptions of three systems with different purposes relevant to understanding and classifying mental disorder: Two major diagnostic manuals -the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) that prepares a framework that emphasizes integration of basic behavioral and neuroscience research to deepen the understanding of mental disorders. It is identified four key issues that present challenges to understanding and classifying the mental disorder: etiology, including the multiple causality of mental disorder; Categories or dimensions, whether the relevant phenomena are discrete categories or dimensions; thresholds, which set the boundaries between disorder and nondisorder; and comorbidity, the fact that individuals with mental illness often meet diagnostic requirements for multiple conditions. Although the systems have varying degrees of overlap and distinguishing features, the common purpose of all three is reducing the burden of suffering due to mental disorder by better understanding and proper classification.

Keywords

References

1- Clark, L. A., Cuthbert, B., Lewis-Fernández, R., Narrow, W. E., & Reed, G. M. (2017). Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(2), 72–145.
2- Reed, G. M., Drescher, J., Krueger, R. B., Atalla, E., Cochran, S. D., First, M. B., … Saxena, S. (2016). Disorders related to sexuality and gender identity in the ICD-11: revising the ICD-10 classification based on current scientific evidence, best clinical practices, and human rights considerations. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 15(3), 205–221.
3- World Health Organization. (2016). ICD-10: International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th Revision. ICD-10 Version: 2016. Retrieved from https://icd.who.int/browse10/2016/en
4- American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5 (5 edition). Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Publishing.
5- Rapoport, J., Giedd, J., & Gogtay, N. (2012). Neurodevelopmental model of schizophrenia: update 2012. Molecular Psychiatry, 17(12), 1228–1238.
6- Feinberg, I. (1982). Schizophrenia: Caused by a fault in programmed synaptic elimination during adolescence? Journal of Psychiatric Research, 17(4), 319–334.
7- Cannon, T. D., Chung, Y., He, G., Sun, D., Jacobson, A., van Erp, T. G. M., … North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study Consortium. (2015). Progressive reduction in cortical thickness as psychosis develops: a multisite longitudinal neuroimaging study of youth at elevated clinical risk. Biological Psychiatry, 77(2), 147–157.
8- Sekar, A., Bialas, A. R., de Rivera, H., Davis, A., Hammond, T. R., Kamitaki, N., McCarroll, S. A. (2016). Schizophrenia risk from complex variation of complement component 4. Nature, 530(7589), 177–183.
9- Tyrer, P., Reed, G. M., & Crawford, M. J. (2015). Classification, assessment, prevalence, and effect of personality disorder. Lancet (London, England), 385(9969), 717–726.
10- Gaebel, W., & Reed, G. M. (2012). Status of Psychotic Disorders in ICD-11. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38(5), 895–898.
11- Reed, G. M., Roberts, M. C., Keeley, J., Hooppell, C., Matsumoto, C., Sharan, P., Medina-Mora, M. E. (2013). Mental health professionals’ natural taxonomies of mental disorders: implications for the clinical utility of the ICD-11 and the DSM-5. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(12), 1191–1212.
12- Keeley, J. W., Reed, G. M., Roberts, M. C., Evans, S. C., Medina-Mora, M. E., Robles, R., Saxena, S. (2016). Developing a science of clinical utility in diagnostic classification systems field study strategies for ICD-11 mental and behavioral disorders. The American Psychologist, 71(1), 3–16.
13- Hollon, S. D., & Ponniah, K. (2010). A review of empirically supported psychological therapies for mood disorders in adults. Depression and Anxiety, 27(10), 891–932.
14- Van Os, J., Linscott, R. J., Myin-Germeys, I., Delespaul, P., & Krabbendam, L. (2009). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychosis continuum: evidence for a psychosis proneness-persistence-impairment model of psychotic disorder. Psychological Medicine, 39(2), 179–195.
15- Kaymaz, N., & van Os, J. (2010). Extended psychosis phenotype--yes: single continuum--unlikely. Psychological Medicine, 40(12), 1963–1966.
16- World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioral disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland.
17- World Health Organization. (2016). mhGAP Intervention Guide for mental, neurological and substance use disorders in non-specialized health settings. Geneva, Switzerland. Available from: http://www.who.int/mental_health/publications/mhGAP_intervention_guide/en/
 18- First, M. B., Reed, G. M., Hyman, S. E., & Saxena, S. (2015). The development of the ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines for Mental and Behavioural Disorders. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 14(1), 82–90.
19- Wakefield, J. C. (2007). The concept of mental disorder: diagnostic implications of the harmful dysfunction analysis. World Psychiatry, 6(3), 149–156.
20- Üstün, B., & Kennedy, C. (2009). What is “functional impairment”? Disentangling disability from clinical significance. World Psychiatry, 8(2), 82–85.
21- World Health Organization. (2001). International classificationm of functioning, disability, and health. Geneva, Switzerland.
22- Hyman, S. E. (2010). The Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: The Problem of Reification. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 155–179.
23- Horwitz, A. V., & Wakefield, J. C. (2007). The loss of sadness: How psychiatry transformed normal sorrow into depressive disorder. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
24- Finn, S. E. (1982). Base rates, utilities, and DSM-III: Shortcomings of fixed-rule systems of psychodiagnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91(4), 294–302.
25- Kessler, R. C. (1994). The National Comorbidity Survey of the United States. International Review of Psychiatry, 6(4), 365–376.
26- Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the Structure of Normal and Abnormal Personality: An Integrative Hierarchical Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 139–157.
27- Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., & Israel, A. C. (1994). A critical examination of the use of the term and concept of comorbidity in psychopathology research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 1(1), 71–83.
28- Lilienfeld, S. O. (2003). Comorbidity Between and Within Childhood Externalizing and Internalizing Disorders: Reflections and Directions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(3), 285–291.
29- Waldman, I. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2001). Applications of taxometric methods to problems of comorbidity: Perspectives and challenges. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8(4), 520–527.
30- Maj, M. (2005). ‘Psychiatric comorbidity’: an artefact of current diagnostic systems? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 186(3), 182–184.
31- Kogan, C. S., Stein, D. J., Maj, M., First, M. B., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., & Reed, G. M. (2016). The Classification of Anxiety and Fear-Related Disorders in the ICD-11. Depression and Anxiety, 33(12), 1141–1154.
32- Sharp, C., Wright, A. G. C., Fowler, J. C., Frueh, B. C., Allen, J. G., Oldham, J., & Clark, L. A. (2015). The structure of personality pathology: Both general ('g’) and specific ('s’) factors? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(2), 387–398.
33- Trull, T. J., Vergés, A., Wood, P. K., & Sher, K. J. (2013). The structure of DSM-IV-TR personality disorder diagnoses in NESARC: A reanalysis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(6), 727–734.
34- Wright, A. G. C., Hopwood, C. J., Skodol, A. E., & Morey, L. C. (2016). Longitudinal validation of general and specific structural features of personality pathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(8), 1120–1134.
35- Tyrer, P., Crawford, M., Mulder, R., Blashfield, R., Farnam, A., Fossati, A., Reed, G. M. (2011). The rationale for the reclassification of personality disorder in the 11th revision of the international classification of diseases (ICD‐11). Personality and Mental Health, 5(4), 246–259.
36- Brotto, L. A. (2010). The DSM diagnostic criteria for sexual aversion disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(2), 271–277.
37- Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729–750.
38- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90.
39- Clark, L. A., Vanderbleek, E. N., Shapiro, J. L., Nuzum, H., Allen, X., Daly, E., … Ro, E. (2015). The Brave New World of Personality Disorder-Trait Specified: Effects of Additional Definitions on Coverage, Prevalence, and Comorbidity. Psychopathology Review, 2(1), 52–82.
40- Karalunas, S. L., Fair, D., Musser, E. D., Aykes, K., Iyer, S. P., & Nigg, J. T. (2014). Subtyping attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder using temperament dimensions: toward biologically based nosologic criteria. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(9), 1015–1024.
41- Evans, S. C., Burke, J. D., Roberts, M. C., Fite, P. J., Lochman, J. E., de la Peña, F. R., & Reed, G. M. (2017). Irritability in child and adolescent psychopathology: An integrative review for ICD-11. Clinical Psychology Review, 53, 29–45.
42- Masi, G., Perugi, G., Toni, C., Millepiedi, S., Mucci, M., Bertini, N., & Pfanner, C. (2006). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder – bipolar comorbidity in children and adolescents. Bipolar Disorders, 8(4), 373–381.
43- Stein, D. J., McLaughlin, K. A., Koenen, K. C., Atwoli, L., Friedman, M. J., Hill, E. D., … Kessler, R. C. (2014). DSM-5 and ICD-11 definitions of posttraumatic stress disorder: investigating "narrow" and "broad" approaches. Depression and Anxiety, 31(6), 494–505.
44- Schmidt, U., & Vermetten, E. (2018). Integrating NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) into PTSD Research. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 38, 69–91.
45- Gallagher, S., Hutto, D. D., Slaby, J., & Cole, J. (2013). The brain as part of an enactive system. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 421–422.
46- Paris, J., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2016). The National Institute of Mental Health Research Domain Criteria: A Bridge Too Far. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 204(1), 26–32.
47- Kirmayer, L. J., Lemelson, R., & Cummings, C. A. (2015). Toward a new epistemology of psychiatry. In Re-Visioning Psychiatry: Cultural Phenomenology, Critical Neuroscience, and Global Mental Health (pp. 41–64). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48- Kirmayer, L. J., & Crafa, D. (2014). What kind of science for psychiatry? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8.
49- Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014). The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): an analysis of methodological and conceptual challenges. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 62, 129–139.
50- Meloni, M. (2014). The social brain meets the reactive genome: neuroscience, epigenetics and the new social biology. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8.
51- Van Os, Jim, Lataster, T., Delespaul, P., Wichers, M., & Myin-Germeys, I. (2014). Evidence that a psychopathology interactome has diagnostic value, predicting clinical needs: an experience sampling study. PloS One, 9(1), e86652.
52- Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., Zimmerman, M. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(4), 454–477.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics