↓ Skip to main content

Symptom modelling can be influenced by psychiatric categories: choices for research domain criteria (RDoC)

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Symptom modelling can be influenced by psychiatric categories: choices for research domain criteria (RDoC)
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11017-017-9416-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sam Fellowes

Abstract

Psychiatric researchers typically assume that the modelling of psychiatric symptoms is not influenced by psychiatric categories; symptoms are modelled and then grouped into a psychiatric category. I highlight this primarily through analysing research domain criteria (RDoC). RDoC's importance makes it worth scrutinizing, and this assessment also serves as a case study with relevance for other areas of psychiatry. RDoC takes inadequacies of existing psychiatric categories as holding back causal investigation. Consequently, RDoC aims to circumnavigate existing psychiatric categories by directly investigating the causal basis of symptoms. The unique methodological approach of RDoC exploits the supposed lack of influence of psychiatric categories on symptom modelling, taking psychiatric symptoms as the same regardless of which psychiatric category is employed or if no psychiatric category is employed. But this supposition is not always true. I will show how psychiatric categories can influence symptom modelling, whereby identical behaviours can be considered as different symptoms based on an individual's psychiatric diagnosis. If the modelling of symptoms is influenced by psychiatric categories, then psychiatric categories will still play a role, a situation which RDoC researchers explicitly aim to avoid. I discuss four ways RDoC could address this issue. This issue also has important implications for factor analysis, cluster analysis, modifying psychiatric categories, and symptom based approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 27%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 4 27%
Psychology 3 20%
Arts and Humanities 3 20%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 October 2020.
All research outputs
#14,311,063
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#152
of 324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,244
of 318,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.