東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Psychiatry's Second Validity Crisis:...

Zautra, Nicholas Gaddis.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

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

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Psychiatry's Second Validity Crisis: The Problem of Disparate Validation./
作者:	Zautra, Nicholas Gaddis.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2024,
面頁冊數:	247 p.
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:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31239385
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. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2024 - 247 p.

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

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

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.

ISBN: 9798382592978Subjects--Topical Terms:

2079849
Philosophy of science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Psychiatry

Psychiatry's Second Validity Crisis: The Problem of Disparate Validation.
LDR:04856nmm a2200409 4500 001 2401610
005 20241022110535.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2024 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798382592978
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI31239385
035 $a AAI31239385
035 $a 2401610
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Zautra, Nicholas Gaddis. $3 3771709
245 1 0 $a Psychiatry's Second Validity Crisis: The Problem of Disparate Validation.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 247 p.
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.
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.
590 $a School code: 0093.
650 4 $a Philosophy of science. $2 bicssc $3 2079849
650 4 $a Mental health. $3 534751
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
650 4 $a Clinical psychology. $3 524863
653 $a Psychiatry
653 $a Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology
653 $a Holy Quadrinity
653 $a Network psychometric validity
653 $a Pluralism
690 $a 0402
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0347
690 $a 0622
710 2 $a Indiana University. $b Cognitive Science. $3 1032056
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-11B.
790 $a 0093
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31239385