Project began with deliberations among members of an internal NIMH working
Project began with deliberations among members of an internal NIMH working group, which served to define the overall shape of the effort as well as the specific process to be followed. The workgroup determined that the optimal approach was to establish a hierarchical scheme, with theTable 1 National Institute of Mental Health Strategic Goal 1.4: Develop, for research purposes, new ways of classifying mental disorders based on dimensions of observable behavior and neurobiological measuresAim # 1 Task Initiate a process for bringing together experts in clinical and basic sciences to jointly identify the fundamental behavioral components that may span multiple disorders (e.g., executive functioning, affect regulation, person perception) and that are more amenable to neuroscience approaches. Determine the full range of variation, from normal to abnormal, among the fundamental components to improve understanding of what is typical versus pathological. Develop reliable and valid measures of these fundamental components of mental disorders for use in basic studies and in more clinical settings. Integrate the fundamental genetic, neurobiological, behavioral, environmental, and experiential components that comprise these mental disorders.specific dimensions nested within five major domains of functioning (see Table 2 for a listing of the RDoC matrix as of June, 2012 at the end of the initial conference series). The project moved forward rapidly once this organizational matrix was established. As called for Aim 1 of Table 1, the RDoC process involved a series of workshops with experts in the field to determine the `fundamental behavioral components’ to be included in the system. The five major domains, conceived on empirical grounds from such diverse research areas as temperament, behavior genetics and structural models of mental disorders, also served as a convenient way to organize the workshops in that one workshop was conducted for each of the five domains. Approximately 30 to 40 experts convened for each workshop. Their charge was to determine which dimensions should be included within the domain; PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28250575 provide a definition for each dimension; and provide a list of the elements for each dimension that could be used to measure it, at each of several units of analysis (as specified in Aim 4 of Table 1). An important consideration is that the dimensions, as behavioral entities tied to neural systems, are Enzastaurin supplier always dependent upon the march of research to continually refine and evolve a scientific understanding of their function and of their implementing circuits. In this sense, the dimensions represent `constructs’ as classically defined in psychological research [31], and this term was adopted for RDoC to emphasize that they will (and should) always be subject to further validation and revision. The RDoC `matrix’ thus consists of a series of rows, with the constructs nested within their superordinate domains, and the columns representing the units of analysis. The reader is encouraged to consult the RDoC website (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-funding/rdoc/index. shtml), which contains the completed matrices from all of the RDoC workshops.The seven pillarsThe distinctions between RDoC and the DSM and ICD systems can be captured by seven major points that include both conceptual and practical differences. First, the approach incorporates a strong translational research perspective. Rather than starting with symptom-based definitions of disorders and w.