CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 184Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health and PsychiatryMental Health Research Topics

Emotional disorders: Cluster 4 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11: Paper 5 of 7 of the thematic section: ‘A proposal for a meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11’

Open access
Goldberg, D. P., Krueger, R. F., Andrews, G., Hobbs, M. J.·2009·Psychological Medicine
DOI 10.1017/s0033291709990298
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: The extant major psychiatric classifications DSM-IV, and ICD-10, are atheoretical and largely descriptive. Although this achieves good reliability, the validity of a medical diagnosis would be greatly enhanced by an understanding of risk factors and clinical manifestations. In an effort to group mental disorders on the basis of aetiology, five clusters have been proposed. This paper considers the validity of the fourth cluster, emotional disorders, within that proposal. Method: We reviewed the literature in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by a Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force, as applied to the cluster of emotional disorders. Results: An emotional cluster of disorders identified using the 11 validators is feasible. Negative affectivity is the defining feature of the emotional cluster. Although there are differences between disorders in the remaining validating criteria, there are similarities that support the feasibility of an emotional cluster. Strong intra-cluster co-morbidity may reflect the action of common risk factors and also shared higher-order symptom dimensions in these emotional disorders. Conclusion: Emotional disorders meet many of the salient criteria proposed by the Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force to suggest a classification cluster.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291709990298

Cites

150 of 150 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The application of validity criteria (validators) is much more meaningful for larger groups or disorder spectra than for individual categorical diagnoses.

    “It was rapidly recognized that the application of such 'validators' was much more meaningful for larger groups or disorder spectra than for individual categorical diagnoses.”

    From The DSM-5: Classification and criteria changes (2013) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Method section says the 11 validating criteria can identify groups of aetiologically related disorders, and the Abstract reports that they support an emotional-disorders cluster. The paper does not establish the broader comparison that applying validators is much more meaningful for disorder spectra than for individual categorical diagnoses. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cross-sectional covariation of emotional disorders can be accounted for by a small set of latent variables, including high negative affectivity/neuroticism, low positive affectivity, and high autonomic arousal.

    “cross-sectional covariation of emotional disorders can be accounted for by a small set of latent variables, including high negative affectivity/neuroticism, low positive affectivity, and high autonomic arousal.[26][27][28][29]”

    From The Classification of Anxiety and Fear-Related Disorders in the ICD-11: Review: Anxiety and Fear-Related Disorders in ICD-11 (2016) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Temperament antecedents section identifies a general distress factor termed neuroticism or negative affectivity, and the Factor analysis and Co-morbidity sections describe a small number of factors underlying covariation among disorders. The copy does not identify low positive affectivity or high autonomic arousal as factors accounting for that covariation; its reported factors are instead symptom or disorder groupings. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Bipolar disorder occupies an intermediary position between the schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders and the emotional or internalizing disorders, exhibiting high levels of disinhibition, psychoticism, and negative affectivity.

    “As indicated in the series of 'metastructure' papers, bipolar disorder occupies an intermediary position between the schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders and the emotional or internalizing disorders - exhibiting high levels of disinhibition, psychoticism, and negative affectivity (31).”

    From The DSM-5: Classification and criteria changes (2013) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Introduction lists the disorders in the emotional cluster, and the Limitations section discusses negative affect across mental disorders, but neither places bipolar disorder between the psychotic and emotional clusters. Searches for bipolar disorder, psychoticism, and disinhibition found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed position or combination of traits. The indexed passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [14]14. Cao Y-P, Zhang Y-L, Wang G-O (2005). Paired analysis of the correlation of neurasthenia with personality, life events and Epstein-Barr virus. Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation 9, 211-213.
  2. [42]42. Eysenck HJ (1964). The measurement of personality : a new instrument. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology 1, 1-11.
  3. [66]66. Jacob KS (in press). Confirmatory factor analysis of common mental disorders. In Diagnostic Issues in Depression and Generalized Anxiety Disorder : Refining the Research Agenda for DSM-V (ed. D. P. Goldberg, K. S. Kendler, P. Sirovatka and D. A. Regier). American Psychiatric Association : Arlington, VA.
  4. [102]102. Martin EI, Nemeroff CB (in press). The biology of generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder : commonalities and distinguishing features. In Diagnostic Issues in Depression and Generalized Anxiety Disorder : Refining the Research Agenda for DSM-V (ed. D. P. Goldberg, K. S. Kendler, P. Sirovatka and D. A. Regier). American Psychiatric Association : Arlington, VA.
  5. [118]118. Rapee RM, Bryant RA (2009). Stress and psychosocial factors in the onset of fear circuitry disorders. In Stress and Fear Circuitry Disorders (ed. G. Andrews, D. S. Charney, P. J. Sirovatka and D. A. Regier), pp. 195-215. American Psychiatric Association : Arlington, VA.
  6. [120]120. M. Rutter, D. V. N. Bishop, D. S. Pine, S. Scott, J. S. Stevenson, E. A. Taylor and A. Thapar), pp. 698-718. Wiley-Blackwell : Oxford, UK.
  7. [122]122. Rauch SL, Drevets WC (2009). Neuroimaging and neuroanatomy of stress-induced and fear circuitry disorders. In Stress and Fear Circuitry Disorders (ed. G. Andrews, D. S. Charney, P. J. Sirovatka and D. A. Regier), pp. 215-255. American Psychiatric Association : Arlington, VA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Goldberg, D. P., Krueger, R. F., Andrews, G., & Hobbs, M. J.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Goldberg, D. P.
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2009-10-01
Volume
39
Issue
12
Pages
2043-2059
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
DOI
10.1017/s0033291709990298
OpenAlex
W2120332001
Semantic Scholar
6c94b19e2131582643b07d9c9138391d0eeed0f6
Cited by
184
References
150
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 18
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
emotional disorders, psychiatric classification, DSM-V, ICD-11, metastructures, negative affectivity, diagnostic validity, risk factors, comorbidities, symptom dimensions
MeSH terms
Affective Symptoms, Anxiety Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Risk Factors, Social Environment, Somatoform Disorders, Temperament, Comorbidity, Dysthymic Disorder, Mood Disorders, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, International Classification of Diseases, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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