The psychopathology p factor: will it revolutionise the science and practice of child and adolescent psychiatry?

The psychopathology p factor has emerged from a series of strong empirical studies, largely in the adult psychiatry literature. Here, some of the recent findings relating to the p factor in children and adolescents are considered and the implications for child and adolescent psychiatry are discussed. Is it essential to covary for ‘p’ when we study specific domains of psychopathology? Do neurodevelopmental conditions make up part of the psychopathology p factor? How do we treat the ‘p factor’ in clinics? This editorial considers some of the contributions from this issue of Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry together with the wider literature that speak to these issues

Criterion A of the AMPD in HiTOP

The categorical model of personality disorder classification in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) is highly and fundamentally problematic. Proposed for DSM-5 and provided within Section III (for Emerging Measures and Models) was the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) classification, consisting of Criterion A (self-interpersonal deficits) and Criterion B (maladaptive personality traits). A proposed alternative to the DSM-5 more generally is an empirically based dimensional organization of psychopathology identified as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP; Kotov etal., 2017). HiTOP currently includes, at the highest level, a general factor of psychopathology. Further down are the five domains of detachment, antagonistic externalizing, disinhibited externalizing, thought disorder, and internalizing (along with a provisional sixth somatoform dimension) that align with Criterion B. The purpose of this article is to discuss the potential inclusion and placement of the self-interpersonal deficits of the DSM-5 Section III Criterion A within HiTOP

Ethnicity and Psychiatric Comorbidity in a National Sample: Evidence for Latent Comorbidity Factor Invariance and Connections with Disorder Prevalence

Purpose: Prevalence rates, and bivariate comorbidity patterns, of many common mental disorders differ significantly across ethnic groups. While studies have examined multivariate comorbidity patterns by gender and age, no studies to our knowledge have examined such patterns by ethnicity. Such an investigation could aid in understanding the nature of ethnicity-related health disparities in mental health and is timely given the likely implementation of multivariate comorbidity structures (i.e., internalizing and externalizing) to frame key parts of DSM-5. Methods: We investigated whether multivariate comorbidity of 11 common mental disorders, and their associated latent comorbidity factors, differed across five ethnic groups in a large, nationally representative sample (n = 43,093). We conducted confirmatory factor analyses and factorial invariance analyses in White (n = 24,507), Hispanic/Latino (n = 8,308), Black (n = 8,245), Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 1,332), and American Indian/Alaska Native (n = 701) individuals. Results: Results supported a two-factor internalizing-externalizing comorbidity factor model in both lifetime and 12-month diagnoses. This structure was invariant across ethnicity, but factor means differed significantly across ethnic groups. Conclusions: These findings, taken together, indicated that observed prevalence rate differences between ethnic groups reflect ethnic differences in latent internalizing and externalizing factor means. We discuss implications for classification (DSM-5 and ICD-11 meta-structure), health disparities research, and treatment

Redefining phenotypes to advance psychiatric genetics: Implications from hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology

Stress and Psychopatholog

Progress in Achieving Quantitative Classification of Psychopathology

Shortcomings of approaches to classifying psychopathology based on expert consensus have given rise to contemporary efforts to classify psychopathology quantitatively. In this paper, we review progress in achieving a quantitative and empirical classification of psychopathology. A substantial empirical literature indicates that psychopathology is generally more dimensional than categorical. When the discreteness versus continuity of psychopathology is treated as a research question, as opposed to being decided as a matter of tradition, the evidence clearly supports the hypothesis of continuity. In addition, a related body of literature shows how psychopathology dimensions can be arranged in a hierarchy, ranging from very broad “spectrum level” dimensions, to specific and narrow clusters of symptoms. In this way, a quantitative approach solves the “problem of comorbidity” by explicitly modeling patterns of co‐occurrence among signs and symptoms within a detailed and variegated hierarchy of dimensional concepts with direct clinical utility. Indeed, extensive evidence pertaining to the dimensional and hierarchical structure of psychopathology has led to the formation of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) Consortium. This is a group of 70 investigators working together to study empirical classification of psychopathology. In this paper, we describe the aims and current foci of the HiTOP Consortium. These aims pertain to continued research on the empirical organization of psychopathology; the connection between personality and psychopathology; the utility of empirically based psychopathology constructs in both research and the clinic; and the development of novel and comprehensive models and corresponding assessment instruments for psychopathology constructs derived from an empirical approach