The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward a Scientific Psychiatric Nosology: Strengths and Limitations
Abstract
A consensus is emerging that psychiatric nosology should become more "scientific." The application of the scientific method to psychiatric nosology has a number of important advantages, including (1) providing a clear criterion by which to evaluate nosologic proposals, (2) preventing rapid changes due to nosologic "fashions" not supported by research findings, (3) increasing the prestige and acceptability of our nosologic system to individuals outside of psychiatry, and (4) optimizing the reliability and validity of our diagnostic constructs. However, many critical issues confronting nosologists are fundamentally nonempirical and cannot be addressed by the scientific method. Examples of such issues include (1) disagreements about the proper construct for a psychiatric disorder; (2) the interpretation of results when different validators provide opposing answers; (3) defining how different syndromes must be to be considered subtypes of the same disorder, distinct disorders within the same overall category, or entirely independent disorders; and (4) the proper balance of reliability and validity. The optimal use of the scientific method in our nosologic process requires a recognition of both its strengths and its limitations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Establishment of Diagnostic Validity in Psychiatric Illness: Its Application to Schizophrenia
ROBINS, E., & GUZE, S. B. (1970) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.126.7.983 · Cited by 2,243
Cited by
Widiger, T. A., & Samuel, D. B. (2005) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.114.4.494 · Cited by 752
Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (2005) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.114.4.537 · Cited by 566
Toward DSM—V and the classification of psychopathology.
Widiger, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.946 · Cited by 540
(1993) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.150.7.1030 · Cited by 494
What is a mental/psychiatric disorder? From DSM-IV to DSM-V
Stein, D. J., Phillips, K. A., Bolton, D., Fulford, K. W. M., Sadler, J. Z., & Kendler, K. S. (2010) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291709992261 · Cited by 477
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kendler, K. S.
- Venue
- Archives of General Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1990-10-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 969
- ISSN
- 0003-990X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2152928279
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 106.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward a Scientific Psychiatric Nosology: Strengths and Limitations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810220085011
- The paper
- Kendler, K. S. (1990). Toward a Scientific Psychiatric Nosology: Strengths and Limitations. Archives of General Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810220085011
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.