Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T21:25:42.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward scientifically useful quantitative models of psychopathology: The importance of a comparative approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Robert F. Krueger ,
Colin G. DeYoung  and
Kristian E. Markon
Robert F. Krueger
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899. krueg038@gmail.com
Colin G. DeYoung
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0344. cdeyoung@umn.edu
Kristian E. Markon
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. kristian-markon@uiowa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cramer et al. articulate a novel perspective on comorbidity. However, their network models must be compared with more parsimonious latent variable models before conclusions can be drawn about network models as plausible accounts of comorbidity. Latent variable models have proven generative in studying psychopathology and its external correlates, and we doubt network models will prove as useful for psychopathology research.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 163 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition, Text Revision [DSM-IV-TR]. American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
Barron, A. R. & Cover, T. M. (1991) Minimum complexity density estimation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37:1034–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, J. W., Zinbarg, R. E., Craske, M. G., Mineka, S., Rose, R. D., Waters, A. M. & Sutton, J. M. (in press) Neuroticism as a common dimension in the internalizing disorders. Psychological Medicine. Epub: November 11, 2009).Google Scholar
Kemp, C. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008) The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105:10678–92.Google Scholar
Kendler, K. S., Prescott, C. A., Myers, J. & Neale, M. C. (2003) The structure of genetic and environmental risk factors for common psychiatric and substance use disorders in men and women. Archives of General Psychiatry 60:929–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, M. D., Krueger, R. F. & Hicks, B. M. (2008) The role of internalizing and externalizing liability factors in accounting for gender differences in the prevalence of common psychopathological syndromes. Psychological Medicine 38:51–61.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. F. & Markon, K. E. (2006a) Reinterpreting comorbidity: A model-based approach to understanding and classifying psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 2:111–33.Google Scholar
Lahey, B. B. (2009) Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist 64:241–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markon, K. & Krueger, R. F. (2004) An empirical comparison of information-theoretic selection criteria for multivariate behavior genetic models. Behavior Genetics 34:593–610.Google Scholar
Patrick, C. J., Bernat, E. M., Malone, S. M., Iacono, W. G., Krueger, R. F. & McGue, M. K. (2006) P300 amplitude as an indicator of externalizing in adolescent males. Psychophysiology 43:84–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed