The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Distinguishing Between the Validity and Utility of Psychiatric Diagnoses
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The meaning of the terms "validity" and "utility" as they apply to psychiatric diagnoses is examined. METHOD: The authors discuss the concepts of validity, utility, and disease; review assumptions that have been made about mental disorders as disease entities; and examine the evidence that mental disorders are separated from one another and from normality by natural boundaries (zones of rarity). RESULTS: Despite historical and recent assumptions to the contrary, there is little evidence that most currently recognized mental disorders are separated by natural boundaries. Researchers are increasingly assuming that variation in symptoms is continuous and are therefore questioning the validity of contemporary classifications. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to distinguish between validity and utility in considering psychiatric diagnoses. Diagnostic categories defined by their syndromes should be regarded as valid only if they have been shown to be discrete entities with natural boundaries that separate them from other disorders. Although most diagnostic concepts have not been shown to be valid in this sense, many possess high utility by virtue of the information about outcome, treatment response, and etiology that they convey. They are therefore invaluable working concepts for clinicians.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Establishment of Diagnostic Validity in Psychiatric Illness: Its Application to Schizophrenia
ROBINS, E., & GUZE, S. B. (1970) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.126.7.983 · Cited by 2,243
The Utilization of Multiple Measurements in Problems of Biological Classification
Rao, C. R. (1948) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1948.tb00008.x · Cited by 871
LEWINSOHN, P. M., KLEIN, D. N., & SEELEY, J. R. (1995) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/00004583-199504000-00012 · Cited by 772
Toward an Integrated Theory of Schizotaxia, Schizotypy, and Schizophrenia
Meehl, P. E. (1990) · Journal of Personality Disorders · doi:10.1521/pedi.1990.4.1.1 · Cited by 751
Regier, D. A., Kaelber, C. T., Rae, D. S., Farmer, M. E., Knauper, B., Kessler, R. C., & Norquist, G. S. (1998) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.55.2.109 · Cited by 549
Toward DSM—V and the classification of psychopathology.
Widiger, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.946 · Cited by 540
(1996) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.153.11.1411 · Cited by 538
New Frontiers in Alzheimer's Disease Genetics
Tanzi, R. E., & Bertram, L. (2001) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00476-7 · Cited by 463
Boundaries of Major Depression: An Evaluation of DSM-IV Criteria
Kendler, K. S., & Gardner, C. O. (1998) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.155.2.172 · Cited by 429
Theory and methods of social research
(1969) · Futures · doi:10.1016/s0016-3287(69)80052-2 · Cited by 351
Cited by
The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population
Kroenke, K., Strine, T. W., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Berry, J. T., & Mokdad, A. H. (2009) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026 · Cited by 5,121
Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., Brown, T. A., Carpenter, W. T., Caspi, A., Clark, L. A., et al. (2017) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/abn0000258 · Cited by 3,335
Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC
Cuthbert, B. N., & Insel, T. R. (2013) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-126 · Cited by 3,053
“The problems have been extensively documented (for example, [14-18]) and do not need to be”
BackgroundAnalysis of shared heritability in common disorders of the brain
The Brainstorm Consortium, Anttila, V., Bulik-Sullivan, B., Finucane, H. K., Walters, R. K., Bras, J., Duncan, L., Escott-Price, V., Falcone, G. J., Gormley, P., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap8757 · Cited by 1,924
Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kraemer, H. C., Kuramoto, S. J., Kuhl, E. A., & Kupfer, D. J. (2013) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12070999 · Cited by 1,163
Metadata
- Authors
- Kendell, R., & Jablensky, A.
- Venue
- American Journal of Psychiatry
- Published
- 2003-01-01
- Volume
- 160
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-12
- ISSN
- 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-7228
- OpenAlex
- W2136115410
- Cited by
- 1,246
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 221.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Distinguishing Between the Validity and Utility of Psychiatric Diagnoses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.4
- The paper
- Kendell, R., & Jablensky, A. (2003). Distinguishing Between the Validity and Utility of Psychiatric Diagnoses. American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.1.4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
