Cited by 248Mental Health and PsychiatryMental Health Research TopicsPsychology and Mental Health

The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): An analysis of methodological and conceptual challenges

Lilienfeld, Scott O.·2014·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

In a bold effort to address the longstanding shortcomings of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) framework for the classification and diagnosis of psychopathology, the National Institute of Mental Health recently launched a research program - the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) - in the hopes of developing an alternative taxonomic system rooted in dysfunctional brain circuitry. Although the RDoC endeavor has considerable promise, it faces several methodological and conceptual challenges, four of which I address here: (a) an overemphasis on biological units and measures, (b) neglect of measurement error, (c) biological and psychometric limitations of endophenotypes, and (d) the distinction between biological predispositions and their behavioral manifestations. Because none of these challenges is in principle insurmountable, I encourage investigators to consider potential remedies for them. RDoC is a calculated gamble that appears to be worth the risk, but its chances of success will be maximized by a thoughtful consideration of hard-won lessons learned--but frequently forgotten--over the past several decades of psychological and psychiatric research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2014.07.019

Cites

147 of 147 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • RDoC has drawn criticism for several reasons: a weak conceptual framework, too much focus on biological units, insufficient attention to psychometric limitations and measurement error, poor integration of developmental and socio-cultural contexts, and a gap between research and clinical practice.

    “the RDoC initiative has been met with its own set of critiques, including an underdeveloped conceptual framework, an overemphasis on biological units, neglect of the psychometric weaknesses and measurement error of some methods, inadequate consideration of developmental factors and socio-cultural contexts, and a disconnect between research and clinical practice [109-114]”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 150 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lilienfeld, S. O.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Lilienfeld, Scott O.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
62
Pages
129-139
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080055550
Cited by
248
References
150
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
154.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
Keywords
Research Domain Criteria, psychopathology classification, DSM, endophenotypes, measurement error, biological predispositions, behavioral manifestations, psychiatric diagnosis
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.), Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Research, United States

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