Psychiatric disorders: a conceptual taxonomy
Abstract
This article summarizes six conceptual dimensions that underlie common assumptions about what counts as an adequate category of psychiatric disorder. These dimensions are 1) causalism-descriptivism, 2) essentialism-nominalism, 3) objectivism-evaluativism, 4) internalism-externalism, 5) entities-agents, and 6) categories-continua. Four different versions of the medical model are described and compared with respect to these dimensions. The medical models vary in several ways, but all can be considered "essentialistic." As a counter to the essentialist homogeneity among the medical models, two nominalist analyses of psychiatric classification are reviewed. In order to fill out the space defined by the conceptual dimensions, two alternatives to medical model approaches are also described. After making some suggestions about where DSM-V might best be aligned with respect to the conceptual dimensions, the authors review the distinction between empirical and nonempirical aspects of classification--and argue that nonempirical aspects of classification are legitimate and necessary.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A classic approach in medicine is to define a disease by its etiology.
“A classic approach in medicine is to de fi ne a disease by its etiology.”
From Definitions of sexual dysfunctions in women and men: a consensus statement from the fourth international consultation on sexual medicine 2015 (2016) · cites this paper as [2]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 236
- Authors
- Zachar, P., & Kendler, K. S.
- Affiliations
- Auburn University (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Psychiatry
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 164
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 557-565
- ISSN
- 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-7228
- OpenAlex
- W2117651686
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 114.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH-49492, MH-068643, R01MH068643, R01MH049492)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA011287, DA011287)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
- Keywords
- psychiatric classification, conceptual taxonomy, essentialism, nominalism, causalism, DSM-V
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Brain, Humans, Models, Neurological, Models, Psychological, Philosophy, Medical, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Causality, 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