Department of Psychology, Western University, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada.
Psychol Med. 2022 Oct;52(14):2930-2936. doi: 10.1017/S0033291722003221. Epub 2022 Oct 21.
Psychopathologists have failed to make significant progress toward understanding the causes of psychopathology. Despite the foundational importance of construct validity and measurement to our field, insufficient attention is paid to these concerns in the assessment of psychopathology vulnerabilities prior to their implementation in causal models. I review the current state of construct validity and measurement in psychopathology research, highlighting the lack of consensus regarding how we should define and measure vulnerability constructs. The limited capacity of open science practices to address these definitional and measurement challenges is discussed. Recommendations for progress are made, including the need for consensus agreement on (1) working definitions and (2) measures of vulnerability constructs. Other recommendations include (3) the need to incentivize 'pre-clinical' descriptive work focused on measurement development, (4) the formation of open-access databases designed to facilitate measurement evaluation and development, and (5) increased exploration of the use of novel technologies to facilitate the collection of high-quality measures of vulnerability.
心理病理学家在理解心理病理学的原因方面未能取得重大进展。尽管结构有效性和测量对我们的领域至关重要,但在将心理病理学脆弱性评估应用于因果模型之前,对这些问题的关注不够。我回顾了心理病理学研究中结构有效性和测量的现状,强调了在定义和测量脆弱性结构方面缺乏共识。讨论了开放科学实践在解决这些定义和测量挑战方面的能力有限。提出了取得进展的建议,包括需要就(1)工作定义和(2)脆弱性结构的测量达成共识。其他建议包括(3)需要激励侧重于测量开发的“临床前”描述性工作,(4)建立旨在促进测量评估和开发的开放获取数据库,以及(5)更多地探索使用新技术来促进收集脆弱性的高质量措施。