Cited by 234Mental Health Research TopicsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

What can specificity designs say about causality in psychopathology research?

Garber, Judy, Hollon, Steven D.·1991·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Specificity designs in psychopathology research are used to examine whether a variable is unique to a given disorder. When nonspecificity is observed, it typically is assumed that the variable in question is not a cause of the disorder, but is instead a nonspecific consequence of general psychopathology. Such reasoning is flawed, however, because it fails to distinguish between testing a particular causal model containing the variable versus testing the causal status of the particular variable within the model. A variable may be nonspecific, but still causal, if it is one of several multiple interacting causes or if a nosological error has been made. A recognition of these complexities has implications for the nature of the psychopathology control group selected.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.129

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • Although intolerance of uncertainty is more strongly associated with generalized anxiety disorder severity than with other anxiety disorders, accumulating evidence questions its narrow specificity to generalized anxiety disorder.

    “Although there is evidence that IU is more strongly associated with GAD severity compared with other anxiety disorders (Dugas et al., 2001), accumulating evidence brings into question IU's narrow specificity (Garber & Hollon, 1991) to GAD.”

    From Intolerance of Uncertainty: A Common Factor in the Treatment of Emotional Disorders (2013) · cites this paper as Garber & Hollon, 1991

  • The study's results are consistent with emerging evidence questioning the narrow specificity of IU to GAD.

    “When taken as a whole, this study's results are consistent with emerging evidence questioning the “narrow” specificity of IU to GAD (see Garber & Hollon, 1991).”

    From Intolerance of Uncertainty: A Common Factor in the Treatment of Emotional Disorders (2013) · cites this paper as Garber & Hollon, 1991

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garber, J., & Hollon, S. D.
Affiliations
Vanderbilt University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1991
Volume
110
Issue
1
Pages
129-136
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2024035006
Cited by
233
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
17.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
non-specificity, causality, psychopathology, causal models, disease classification, control groups
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Models, Psychological, Psychopathology, Risk Factors

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