DeYoung Colin G, Kotov Roman, Krueger Robert F, Cicero David C, Conway Christopher C, Eaton Nicholas R, Forbes Miriam K, Hallquist Michael N, Jonas Katherine, Latzman Robert D, Rodriguez-Seijas Craig, Ruggero Camilo J, Simms Leonard J, Waldman Irwin D, Waszczuk Monika A, Widiger Thomas, Wright Aidan G C
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota.
Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology, Stony Brook University.
Clin Psychol Sci. 2022 Mar;10(2):279-284. doi: 10.1177/21677026211049390. Epub 2021 Oct 25.
This commentary discusses questions and misconceptions about HiTOP raised by Haeffel et al. (2021). We explain what the system classifies and why it is descriptive and atheoretical, highlighting benefits and limitations of this approach. We clarify why the system is organized according to patterns of covariation or comorbidity among signs and symptoms of psychopathology, and we discuss how it is designed to be falsifiable and revised in a manner that is responsive to data. We refer to the body of evidence for HiTOP's external validity and for its scientific and clinical utility. We further describe how the system is currently used in clinics. In sum, many of Haeffel et al.'s concerns about HiTOP are unwarranted, and for those concerns that reflect real current limitations of HiTOP, our consortium is working to address them, with the aim of creating a nosology that is comprehensive and useful to both scientists and clinicians.
本评论讨论了海费尔等人（2021年）提出的关于《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》（HiTOP）的问题和误解。我们解释了该系统分类的内容以及它为何具有描述性且无理论性，强调了这种方法的优点和局限性。我们阐明了该系统为何根据精神病理学体征和症状之间的共变模式或共病情况进行组织，并讨论了它如何设计成可证伪的且能以响应数据的方式进行修订。我们提及了支持HiTOP外部效度及其科学和临床效用的证据主体。我们进一步描述了该系统目前在临床中的使用方式。总之，海费尔等人对HiTOP的许多担忧是没有根据的，对于那些反映HiTOP当前实际局限性的担忧，我们的联盟正在努力解决，目的是创建一种对科学家和临床医生都全面且有用的疾病分类学。
