Cited by 333Mental Health Research TopicsPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyMental Health and Psychiatry

Integrating the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice.

Open access
Ruggero, Camilo J., Kotov, Roman, Hopwood, Christopher J., First, Michael, Clark, Lee Anna, Skodol, Andrew E., Mullins-Sweatt, Stephanie N., Patrick, Christopher J. +25 more·2019·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Diagnosis is a cornerstone of clinical practice for mental health care providers, yet traditional diagnostic systems have well-known shortcomings, including inadequate reliability, high comorbidity, and marked within-diagnosis heterogeneity. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is a data-driven, hierarchically based alternative to traditional classifications that conceptualizes psychopathology as a set of dimensions organized into increasingly broad, transdiagnostic spectra. Prior work has shown that using a dimensional approach improves reliability and validity, but translating a model like HiTOP into a workable system that is useful for health care providers remains a major challenge. METHOD: The present work outlines the HiTOP model and describes the core principles to guide its integration into clinical practice. RESULTS: Potential advantages and limitations of the HiTOP model for clinical utility are reviewed, including with respect to case conceptualization and treatment planning. A HiTOP approach to practice is illustrated and contrasted with an approach based on traditional nosology. Common barriers to using HiTOP in real-world health care settings and solutions to these barriers are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: HiTOP represents a viable alternative to classifying mental illness that can be integrated into practice today, although research is needed to further establish its utility. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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 · 10.1037/ccp0000452

Cites

121 of 121 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?

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. Clark LA, Cuthbert B, Lewis-Fernández R, Narrow W, & Reed GM (2017). ICD-11, DSM-5, and RDoC: Three approaches to understanding and classifying mental disorder. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(2), 72– 145. 10.1177/1529100617727266 29211974 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Clark LA, Simms LJ, Wu KD, & Casillas A (2014). Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality, 2nd Edition (SNAP-2): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.
  3. Eriksen K, & Kress VE (2004). Beyond the DSM Story: Ethical Quandaries, Challenges, and Best Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  4. Martinez M, Marangell LB, & Martinez JM (2008). Psychopharmacology In Hales RE, Yudofsky SC, & Gabbard GO (Eds.), The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry, Fifth Edition Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
  5. Morey LC (2007a). Professional manual for the Personality Assessment Inventory (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
  6. Norton PJ (2012). Cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety: A transdiagnostic treatment manual. New York, NY: Guilford Press
  7. Welfel ER (2010). Ethics in Counseling & Psychotherapy, 4th Edition Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ruggero, C. J., Kotov, R., Hopwood, C. J., First, M., Clark, L. A., Skodol, A. E., Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Patrick, C. J., Bach, B., Cicero, D. C., Docherty, A., Simms, L. J., Bagby, R. M., Krueger, R. F., Callahan, J. L., Chmielewski, M., Conway, C. C., De Clercq, B., Dornbach-Bender, A., Eaton, N. R., Forbes, M. K., Forbush, K. T., Haltigan, J. D., Miller, J. D., Morey, L. C., Patalay, P., Regier, D. A., Reininghaus, U., Shackman, A. J., Waszczuk, M. A., Watson, D., Wright, A. G. C., & Zimmermann, J.
Affiliations
  • University of North Texas (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Florida State University (US)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Southern Methodist University (US)
  • William & Mary (US)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing (GB)
  • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Kassel (DE)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2019-12
Volume
87
Issue
12
Pages
1069-1084
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2986368852
Cited by
333
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
38.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (DA040717, MH107444)
  • University of Maryland
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology, transdiagnostic dimensions, mental illness diagnosis, clinical utility, case formulation, treatment planning, disease classification, implementation barriers, comorbidities
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Mental Disorders, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Psychopathology

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