國立虎尾科技大學 |

Psychiatry's Second Validity Crisis : = The Problem of Disparate Validation.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Psychiatry's Second Validity Crisis :/
其他題名:	The Problem of Disparate Validation.
作者:	Zautra, Nicholas Gaddis.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (247 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-11, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-11B.
標題:	Philosophy of science. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798382592978

Psychiatry's Second Validity Crisis : = The Problem of Disparate Validation.
Zautra, Nicholas Gaddis.

Psychiatry's Second Validity Crisis :The Problem of Disparate Validation. - 1 online resource (247 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-11, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, 2024.

Includes bibliographical references

In response to the crisis of confidence in the validity of the DSM's diagnostic categories, psychiatry has seen a proliferation of alternative research frameworks for studying and classifying psychiatric disorders in new ways. The big three alternative approaches-the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), the Network Approach to Psychopathology, and the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)-have been characterized as healthy responses to the DSM's crisis of validity.A yet unexplored aspect of psychiatry's validity crisis is related to disagreements regarding the standards of validity. Each of the approaches have multiple distinct senses of validity, which point to a thornier methodological problem for psychiatry that I term the problem of "disparate validation." This two-part problem can be summarized as follows: scientific psychiatry aims at achieving empirically informed classifications that demonstrate validity in the sense that they correspond to real attributes of psychopathology. To achieve this, alternative research frameworks are now approaching the conceptualization, testing, organizing, and validation of different features of psychopathology by their own standards in the hopes of one day informing more valid systems of psychiatric classification. The first problem is given a system of classification, by whose standard of validity should such a system be validated? Is there a single validation procedure by which validation should proceed, or some other combination thereof? Second, when we attempt to validate classifications informed by differing standards of validity, will any such validation be capable of assessing a unified fundamental sense of validity that exists across the various frameworks, or will they only be valid in their own narrow sense?In this dissertation, I offer an assessment of the problem of disparate validation through faithful reconstructions of the Holy Quadrinity of distinct senses of validity in psychiatry: starting with diagnostic validity (DSM) and proceeding with psychometric validity (HiTOP), network psychometric validity (the Network Approach), and etio-pathophysiological validity (RDoC). I introduce commonalities across frameworks that have not been previously addressed, including how each framework employs expert curation, being the selection and justification of certain elements into their model based on compromises, and how the goal of each framework eventually becomes a return to the original validators of Robins and Guze to evaluate prognosis, biomarkers, and etiology of psychiatric classifications.By evaluating psychiatry's distinct senses of validity, I argue that despite an appearance of a shared goal of informing more valid classifications, the existence of multiple frameworks in which each employs their own standards of validity and validation is a detrimental methodology to achieve any kind of unified validation work. At its core, fundamental disagreements concerning 1) the underlying phenomenon that researchers are attempting to make inferences about; 2) the sources of validating evidence; and 3) the very nature of validity and validation, move each framework further and further toward a state of unrecognized plurality, in which these frameworks are really not at all talking about the same thing and are in fact engaged in different projects with different aims. I conclude with a positive program that suggests in what ways such different frameworks with distinct validation procedures can achieve validity in their own specific sense while also coming to inform one another through a kind of complementary pluralism.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798382592978Subjects--Topical Terms:

1009373
Philosophy of science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

PsychiatryIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Psychiatry's Second Validity Crisis : = The Problem of Disparate Validation.
LDR:05058ntm a22004097 4500 001 1149864
005 20241022110535.5
006 m o d
007 cr bn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2024 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798382592978
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI31239385
035 $a AAI31239385
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Zautra, Nicholas Gaddis. $3 1476233
245 1 0 $a Psychiatry's Second Validity Crisis : $b The Problem of Disparate Validation.
264 0 $c 2024
300 $a 1 online resource (247 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-11, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Ludwig, Kirk;Zachar, Peter.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, 2024.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a In response to the crisis of confidence in the validity of the DSM's diagnostic categories, psychiatry has seen a proliferation of alternative research frameworks for studying and classifying psychiatric disorders in new ways. The big three alternative approaches-the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), the Network Approach to Psychopathology, and the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)-have been characterized as healthy responses to the DSM's crisis of validity.A yet unexplored aspect of psychiatry's validity crisis is related to disagreements regarding the standards of validity. Each of the approaches have multiple distinct senses of validity, which point to a thornier methodological problem for psychiatry that I term the problem of "disparate validation." This two-part problem can be summarized as follows: scientific psychiatry aims at achieving empirically informed classifications that demonstrate validity in the sense that they correspond to real attributes of psychopathology. To achieve this, alternative research frameworks are now approaching the conceptualization, testing, organizing, and validation of different features of psychopathology by their own standards in the hopes of one day informing more valid systems of psychiatric classification. The first problem is given a system of classification, by whose standard of validity should such a system be validated? Is there a single validation procedure by which validation should proceed, or some other combination thereof? Second, when we attempt to validate classifications informed by differing standards of validity, will any such validation be capable of assessing a unified fundamental sense of validity that exists across the various frameworks, or will they only be valid in their own narrow sense?In this dissertation, I offer an assessment of the problem of disparate validation through faithful reconstructions of the Holy Quadrinity of distinct senses of validity in psychiatry: starting with diagnostic validity (DSM) and proceeding with psychometric validity (HiTOP), network psychometric validity (the Network Approach), and etio-pathophysiological validity (RDoC). I introduce commonalities across frameworks that have not been previously addressed, including how each framework employs expert curation, being the selection and justification of certain elements into their model based on compromises, and how the goal of each framework eventually becomes a return to the original validators of Robins and Guze to evaluate prognosis, biomarkers, and etiology of psychiatric classifications.By evaluating psychiatry's distinct senses of validity, I argue that despite an appearance of a shared goal of informing more valid classifications, the existence of multiple frameworks in which each employs their own standards of validity and validation is a detrimental methodology to achieve any kind of unified validation work. At its core, fundamental disagreements concerning 1) the underlying phenomenon that researchers are attempting to make inferences about; 2) the sources of validating evidence; and 3) the very nature of validity and validation, move each framework further and further toward a state of unrecognized plurality, in which these frameworks are really not at all talking about the same thing and are in fact engaged in different projects with different aims. I conclude with a positive program that suggests in what ways such different frameworks with distinct validation procedures can achieve validity in their own specific sense while also coming to inform one another through a kind of complementary pluralism.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Philosophy of science. $2 bicssc $3 1009373
650 4 $a Mental health. $3 564038
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 559771
650 4 $a Clinical psychology. $3 649607
653 $a Psychiatry
653 $a Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology
653 $a Holy Quadrinity
653 $a Network psychometric validity
653 $a Pluralism
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0402
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0347
690 $a 0622
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a Indiana University. $b Cognitive Science. $3 1186575
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-11B.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31239385 $z click for full text (PQDT)