| Title |
Challenges and Strategies in Helping the DSM Become More Dimensional and Empirically Based
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Psychiatry Reports, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11920-014-0515-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert F. Krueger, Christopher J. Hopwood, Aidan G. C. Wright, Kristian E. Markon |
| Abstract |
The DSM-5 creation process and outcome underlines a core tension in psychiatry between empirical evidence that mental pathologies tend to be dimensional and a historical emphasis on delineating categorical disorders to frame psychiatric thinking. The DSM has been slow to reflect dimensional evidence because doing so is often perceived as a disruptive paradigm shift. As a result, other authorities are making this shift, circumventing the DSM in the process. For example, through the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), NIMH now encourages investigators to focus on a dimensional and neuroscientific conceptualization of mental disorder research. Fortunately, the DSM-5 contains a dimensional model of maladaptive personality traits that provides clinical descriptors that align conceptually with the neuroscience-based dimensions delineated in the RDoC and in basic science research. Through frameworks such as the DSM-5 trait model, the DSM can evolve to better incorporate evidence of the dimensionality of mental disorder. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 30 | 52% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 16 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 30 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,813,139
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Current Psychiatry Reports
#312
of 1,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,596
of 256,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Psychiatry Reports
#13
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 256,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.