Transdiagnostische modellen voor diagnostiek van psychische stoornissen

Implicaties voor de opleiding van psychologen
04/09/2020
Paul van der Heijden, Marc Hendriks, Cilia Witteman, Jos Egger
Geen reacties
shutterstock_1171260877 hersenen concept leren
Volume 55, Issue 9

Transdiagnostic models for the diagnosis of psychopathological disorders

P. van der Heijden, M. Hendriks. C. Witteman, J. Egger

The last decades, empirical, dimensional models have gained influence over categorical models in classifying, defining and understanding mental disorders. In the current article we first evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a categorical approach to mental disorders. Secondly, we describe two dimensional alternatives for the categorical approach: the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), which is based on empirically observed patterns of co-occurrence among psychological symptoms and the NIMH’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) that provides a framework that integrates behavioural and neuroscience perspectives to understand the etiology of mental disorders. HiTOP and RDoC have overlapping and distinguishing features that complement each other to improve assessment of mental disorders and insight in possible explanations and course. In the current article, we address the implications of this paradigm shift into transdiagnostic dimensional models for the education of academic psychologists.

2462 Weergaven
145 Downloads
  • Psychische stoornissen als te onderscheiden categoriën
  • HiTOP
    • Meetinstrumenten
    • HiTOP als alternatief voor een categorale diagnostiek van psychopathologie?
  • RDOC
  • Consequenties voor psychodiagnostiek van complexe stoornissen
  • Implicaties invoering alternatieve modellen voor diagnostiekonderwijs
  • Literatuurlijst
  • Over de auteur
Log in
In theorievorming over de diagnostiek van psychische stoornissen is de laatste jaren een verschuiving waarneembaar in het belang dat wordt gehecht aan een classificatie van psychische stoornissen volgens de DSM. Met de Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) en de Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) wordt in wetenschappelijke kringen afstand genomen van een visie op psychische stoornissen als te onderscheiden categorieën. Deze verschuiving kan belangrijke gevolgen hebben voor de dagelijkse klinische praktijk en daarmee ook voor het (post)academisch diagnostiekonderwijs, betogen Paul van der Heijden en collega’s.

In de geestelijke gezondheidszorg worden voortdurend diagnostische beslissingen genomen. Dat is niet altijd makkelijk, om diverse redenen. Allereerst is de informatie die clinici hebben vaak onvolledig en is er meestal geen sprake van feiten, maar van te interpreteren gegevens. Cliënten hebben soms weinig zelfinzicht, kunnen of willen niet alles laten zien of vertellen, of hebben bewust of onbewust belang bij het overdrijven of ontkennen van klachten (Dandachi & Ponds, 2013). Ten tweede krijgen clinici doorgaans weinig systematische, bruikbare feedback op hun diagnostische beslissingen (Furnham & Schofield, 1987). Ten derde ontbreekt het in de klinische praktijk nogal eens aan systematische oordeelsvorming en maken clinici in hun oordeelsvorming te weinig gebruik van statistische kennis (Merkelbach & Dandachi, 2020; Tiemens, Wagenvoorde & Witteman, 2018; Witteman, Van der Heijden & Claes, 2018). En, ten slotte en meer fundamenteel, ontbreekt het aan een gouden standaard: er is binnen het psychologische en psychiatrische wetenschapsgebied en de geestelijke gezondheidszorg geen overeenstemming over wat wel of geen stoornis is (Frances, 2013).

Op deze

Literatuurlijst

  1. Achenbach, T.M. (1966). The classification of children’s psychiatric symptoms: a factor analytic study. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1-37.
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
  4. Barlow, D.H., Farchione, T.J., Bullis, J.R., Gallagher, M.W., Murray‐Latin, H., Sauer‐Zavala, S., … & Cassiello‐Robbins, C. (2017). The Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders Compared With Diagnosis‐Specific Protocols for Anxiety Disorders: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 74, 875‐884.
  5. Bornstein, R.F. (2017). Evidence-based psychological assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99, 435-445
  6. Caspi, A., Houts, R.M., Belsky, D.W., Goldman-Mellor, C.J., Harrington, H., Israel, S., … Moffitt, T.E. (2014). The p factor: one general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2, 119-137.
  7. Caspi, A. & Moffit, T.E. (2018). All for One and One for All: Mental Disorders in One Dimension. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 175, 831–844.
  8. Chmielewski, M., Clark, L.A., Bagby, R.M. & Watson, D. (2015). Method matters: Understanding diagnostic reliability in DSM‐IV and DSM‐5. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 764‐769.
  9. Clark, L.A., Cuthbert, B., Lewis-Fernández, R., Narrow, W.E. & Reed, G.M. (2017). Three approaches to understanding and classifying mental disorder: ICD-11, DSM–5, and the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18, 72–145.
  10. Conway, C.C., Forbes, M.K., Forbush, K.T., …., Eaton, N.R. (2019). A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology Can Transform Mental Health Research. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1–18. doi: 10.1177/1745691618810696.
  11. Cooper L.D., Balsis S. & Zimmerman M. (2010). Challenges associated with a polythetic diagnostic system: criteria combinations in the personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 886-895.
  12. Costa, P.T. & MacCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO FFI): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources
  13. Cuthbert, B.N. (2014). The RDoC framework: Facilitation transition from ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that integrate neuroscience and psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 13, 28-35.
  14. Dandachi-Fitzgerald, B., Ponds, R.W.H.M. & Merten, T. (2013). Symptom validity and neuropsychological assessment: A survey of practices and beliefs of neuropsychologists in six European countries. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28, 771-783.
  15. Egger, J.I.M., Mey, De H.R.A. & Janssen, G.T.L. (2007). Assessment of executive functioning in psychiatric disorders: Functional diagnosis as the ouverture of treatment. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 4, 111-116.
  16. Egger, J.I.M., Wingbermühle, E. & Swaab, H. (2009). Klinische neuropsychologie: Nieuw specialisme sluit aan bij maatschappelijke ontwikkelingen. GZ-psychologie, 1, 34-39.
  17. First, M.B., Rebello, T.J., Keeley, J.W., Bhargava, R., Dai, Y., Kulygina, M., … & Reed, G.M. (2018). Do mental health professionals use diagnostic classifications the way we think they do? A global survey. World Psychiatry, 17(2), 187‐195.
  18. Frances, A. (2013). Terug naar normaal. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds.
  19. Freedman, R., Lewis, D.A., Michels, R., Pine, D.S., Schultz, S.K., Tamminga, C.A., . . . Yager, J. (2013). The initial field trials of DSM-5: New blooms and old thorns. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 1-5.
  20. Furnham, A. & Schofield, S. (1987). Accepting personality test feedback: A review of the Barnum effect. Current Psychology, 6, 162-178.
  21. Galatzer-Levy, I.R. & Bryant, R.A. (2013). 636,120 ways to have posttraumatic stress disorder. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 651–662.
  22. Griffith, J.W., Zinbarg, R.E., Craske, M.G., Mineka, S., Rose, R.D., Waters, A.M. & Sutton, J.M. (2010). Neuroticism as a common dimension in the internalizing disorders. Psychological Medicine, 40, 1125-1136.
  23. Hafkenscheid, A. (2018). Beter worden in je vak. Systematische zelfreflectie voor professionals in de GGZ. Amsterdam: Boom uitgevers.
  24. Henje Blom, E., Duncan, L.G., Ho, T.C., Connoly, C.G., Le Winn, K.Z., Chesney, M., Hecht, F.M. & Yang, T.T. (2014). The development of an RDoC-based treatment program for adolescent depression: “Training for Awareness, Resilience, and Action”(TARA). Frotiers of Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-19 .
  25. Hopwood, C., Bagby, R.M., Gralnick, T.M., Ro, E., Ruggero, C., Mullins‐Swea HiTOP tt, S., … & Patrick, C.J. (2019). Integrating psychotherapy with the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP).Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, in press. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jb8z4
  26. Hyman, S. (2010). The diagnosis of mental disorders: The problem of reification.
    Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 155-179.
  27. Insel, T.R. (2009). A strategic plan for research on mental illness: translating scientific opportunity into public health impact. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 128-133.
  28. Insel, T.R. (2014). The NIMH research domain criteria (RDoC) project: precision medicine for psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171, 395-397.
  29. Kampen, D. van & Beurs, E. de (2009). Dimensionale assessment van persoonlijkheidspathologie, inclusief screeningversie. Handleiding DAPP-BQ en DAPP Screening. Amsterdam: Hogrefe uitgevers.
  30. Keijsers, G., Van Minnen, A. & Hoogduin, K. (2017). Protocollaire behandelingen voor volwassenen met psychische klachten, Deel I-3. Amsterdam: Boom uitgevers.
  31. Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., …, Zimmerman, M. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 454–477.
  32. Krueger, R.F., Kotov, R. & Watson, D. (2018). A paradigm shift in psychiatric classification: the Hierarchical Taxonomy Of Psychopathology (HiTOP). World Psychiatry, 17, 24-25.
  33. Krueger, R.F. & Eaton, N.R. (2010). Personality traits and the classification of mental disorders: toward a more complete integration in DSM-5 and an empirical model of psychopathology. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 97-118.
  34. Lilienfield, S.O., Ritschel, R.A., Lynn, S.J., Cautin, R.L. & Latzam, R.D. (2014). Why Ineffective Psychotherapies Appear to Work: A Taxonomy of Causes of Spurious Therapeutic Effectiveness. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 355 -387.
  35. Markon, K.E., Chmielewski, M. & Miller, C.J. (2011). The reliability and validity of discrete and continuous measures of psychopathology: a quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 856‐879.
  36. Merckelbach, H. & Dandachi-Fitzgerald, B. (2020). Psychodiagnostiek anno 2020. Obstakels voor de diagnosticus, 55 (1), 34-44.
  37. Meurs, P. (2017). Zonder context geen bewijs. Over de illusie van Evidence Based Practice in de zorg. Den Haag: Raad voor de Volksgezondheid en Samenleving.
  38. Sadler, J.Z. (2013). Considering the Economy of DSM alternatives. In: Paris, J. & Philips, J. Making the DSM-5. Concepts & Controversies. New York: Springer.
  39. Sanislow, C.A., Pine, D.S., Quinn, K.J., Kozak, M.J., Garvey, M.A., Heinssen, R.K., … Cuthbert, B.N. (2010). Developing constructs for psychopathology research: Research domain criteria. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 631-639.
  40. Sellbom, M. (2019). The MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): Assessment of personality and psychopathology in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 149-177.
  41. Snellen, W.M. (2018). Persoonlijkheidsdiagnostiek in de klinische praktijk. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
  42. Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681–706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  43. Tiemens, B., Wagenvoorde, R. & Witteman, C. (2018). Waarom iedere psycholoog de regel van Bayes moet kennen. GZ-psychologie, 3, 17-23.
  44. Van der Heijden, P., Derksen, J., Egger, J., Rossi, G., Laheij, M. & Bögels, T. (2013). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form. Handleiding voor afname, scoring en interpretatie. Nijmegen: PEN Test Publisher.
  45. Van der Heijden, P.T., Ingenhoven, T., Berghuis, J.G., Rossi, G.M.P. (2014). Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Nederlandse Vertaling. Amsterdam: Boom testuitgevers.
  46. Vanheule, S., Adriaens, P., Bazan, A., Bracke, P., Devisch, I., Feys, J., Froyen, B., Gerard, S., Nieman, D.H., Van Os, J. & Calmeyn, M. (2019). Belgian Superior Health Council advises against the use of the DSM categories. The Lancet Psychiatry, 16, 726.
  47. Vanheule, S., Desmet, M., Meganck, R., Inslegers, R., Willemsen, J., De Schryver, M., Devisch, I. (2014). Reliability in psychiatric diagnosis with the DSM: old wine in new barrels. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83, 313-314.
  48. Verheul, R. & Widiger, T.A. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of the Prevalence and Usage of the Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDNOS) Diagnosis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 309-319.
  49. Van Nierop, M., Van Os, J., Gunther, N., Myin-Germeys, I., De Graaf, R., Ten Have, M., Van Dorsselaer, S., Bak, M. & Van Winkel, R. (2012). Phenotypically continuous with clinical psychosis, discontinuous in need of care: evidence for an extended psychosis phenotype. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38, 231-238.
  50. Van Os, J., Guloksuz, S., Vijn, T.W., Hafkenscheid, A. & Delespaul, P. (2019) The evidence‐based group‐level symptom‐reduction model as the organizing principle for mental health care: time for change? World Psychiatry, 18, 88-96.
  51. Van Os, J., Guloksuz, S., Vijn, T.W., Hafkenscheid, A. & Delespaul, P. (2019) The evidence‐based group‐level symptom‐reduction model as the organizing principle for mental health care: time for change? World Psychiatry, 18, 88-96.
  52. Van Os, J., Kenis, G. & Rutten, B.P. (2010). The environment and schizophrenia. Nature, 268, 203-212.
  53. Van Os, J. (2017). De DSM-5 voorbij! Persoonlijke diagnostiek in een nieuwe GGZ. Leusden: Diagnosis uitgevers.
  54. Wakefield, J.C. (2010). Misdiagnosing normality: Psychiatry’s failure to address the problem of false positive diagnoses of mental disorder in a changing professional environment. Journal of Mental Health, 19, 337–351.
  55. Waszczuk, M.A., Zimmerman, M., Ruggero, C., Li, K., MacNamara, A., Weinberg, A., . . . Kotov, R. (2017). What do clinicians treat: Diagnoses or symptoms? The incremental validity of a symptom-based, dimensional characterization of emotional disorders in predicting medication prescription patterns. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 79, 80–88.
  56. Widiger, T.A. & Smith, G.T. (2008). Personality and psychopathology. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 743–769). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  57. Witteman, C., Heijden van der, P.T. & Claes, L. (2018). Clinical Assessment: Psychodiagnostic Decision Making. Utrecht: De Tijdstroom.
  58. Yager, J. & Feinstein, R.E. (2017). Potential Applications of the National institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) to Clinical Psychiatric Practice: How RDoC Might Be Used in Assessment, Diagnostic Processes, Case Formulation, Treatment Planning, and Clinical Notes. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 78, 423-432.