Cited by 145Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health Research TopicsMental Health and Psychiatry

Externalizing disorders: Cluster 5 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11: Paper 6 of 7 of the thematic section: ‘A proposal for a meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11’

Open access
Krueger, R. F., South, S. C.·2009·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: The extant major psychiatric classifications DSM-IV and ICD-10 are purportedly atheoretical and largely descriptive. Although this achieves good reliability, the validity of a medical diagnosis is greatly enhanced by an understanding of the etiology. In an attempt to group mental disorders on the basis of etiology, five clusters have been proposed. We consider the validity of the fifth cluster, externalizing disorders, within this proposal. Method: We reviewed the literature in relation to 11 validating criteria proposed by the Study Group of the DSM-V Task Force, in terms of the extent to which these criteria support the idea of a coherent externalizing spectrum of disorders. Results: This cluster distinguishes itself by the central role of disinhibitory personality in mental disorders spread throughout sections of the current classifications, including substance dependence, antisocial personality disorder and conduct disorder. Shared biomarkers, co-morbidity and course offer additional evidence for a valid cluster of externalizing disorders. Conclusion: Externalizing 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/s0033291709990328

Cites

73 of 73 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 [32]

    The Introduction describes validators for clusters of psychiatric illness, and the Co-morbidity patterns section says research on broad underlying factors is likely to be more profitable than research on their individual manifestations. These passages support the preference for a spectrum-level approach, but do not establish the broader claim that applying validators is much more meaningful for spectra than for individual categorical diagnoses, or that this was rapidly recognized. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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: 1

  1. [61]61. M. W. Kent and J. E. Rolf), 3rd edn, pp. 49-74. University of New England Press : Hanover, NH.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Krueger, R. F., & South, S. C.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Krueger, R. F.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2009-10-01
Volume
39
Issue
12
Pages
2061-2070
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2060288140
Cited by
145
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 15
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
externalizing disorders, psychiatric classification, DSM-V, ICD-11, antisocial personality disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, comorbidities, shared biomarkers, course of mental disorders, classification validity
MeSH terms
Aggression, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Mental Disorders, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Internal-External Control, Personality Disorders, Phenotype, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Social Environment, Temperament, Comorbidity, Personal Construct Theory, Conduct Disorder, Substance-Related Disorders, 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