Laurie Wakschlag, PhD; MPI of MHE T32; Director DevSci; Professor & Vice Chair; Dept of Medical Social Sciences/Developmental-clinical psychologist.
Stew Shankman, PhD; MPI of MHE T32; Professor and Chief of Psychology; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
With support from Aislinn Sandre, BSc; DevSci Teaching Fellow; PhD Candidate at McGill University
The Weekly Seminar will explore RDoC-inspired approaches to studying neurodevelopmental mechanisms of psychopathology across different domains and constructs, such as: Negative Valence, Positive Valence, Cognitive, Social, Arousal & Regulation, and, Sensorimotor.
Throughout the seminar, fellows will examine these approaches and their real-world applications from transdiagnostic perspectives and using multiple methods. Through participation in the seminar fellows will expand their understanding and analysis of RDoC within developmental and environmental contexts with an emphasis on computational methods, the intersection of physical and mental health, as well as intervention, prevention, and implementation.
What is RDoC?
RDoC, or Research Domain Criteria, was developed in 2009 by the National Institute for Mental Health as a research framework rather than diagnostic guideline(s) or an application for diagnostics in clinical practice.
The RDoC framework is used to support biobehavioral approaches for studying mental disorders by integrating, “many levels of information (from genomics and circuits to behavior and self-reports) in order to explore basic dimensions of functioning that span the full range of human behavior from normal to abnormal.”
RDoC was launched with the goals of better, ” understand[ing] mental disorders by focusing on mechanisms, components, and processes that make up human behavior, and what happens when they go awry. [And] The long-term goals of RDoC are to help improve diagnosis and shed light on potential new treatments for mental disorders.” (1)
Why RDoC?
“Traditionally, mental illnesses have been conceptualized as disorders that are diagnosed on the basis of the number and type of symptoms, and the presence of distress or impairment. This view of mental disorders – and the resulting diagnostic systems – provides benefits such as reliability and ease of diagnosis across a variety of contexts; however, this approach has come at the cost of numerous tradeoffs including the following:
- Research based on diagnostic categories can suffer from problems with heterogeneity because of the varied ways people can qualify for a symptom-based disorder diagnosis. Two people, in some cases, can be diagnosed with the same disorder despite having few symptoms in common. This makes it difficult for researchers to pinpoint specific aspects of disorders because the neurobiological mechanisms may differ greatly among patients who share little to no symptomatology.
- Also, patients who meet criteria for one mental disorder often tend to meet criteria for other mental disorders – a phenomenon known as comorbidity. This has led researchers to question whether too much emphasis has been placed on studying specific disorders in isolation from other disorders. It has also led to concerns that common dimensions underlying mental disorders are not being properly reflected in mental health research.
- Researchers seeking to reduce heterogeneity in their samples often limit participants to those with “pure” diagnoses. In order to do this, they do not enroll individuals representing the larger spectrum of functioning or those with related disorders; however, this type of variation can be important for understanding the underlying contributors to mental health and illness.
- Clinical criteria for defining a disorder, while created through expert practitioner consensus, are somewhat arbitrary. Research indicates that there are important similarities between those whose symptoms meet the criteria for a disorder versus those who just miss the cutoff for diagnosis due to fewer and/or less severe symptoms. To understand the full spectrum of mental health and illness, it is important to adopt dimensional conceptualizations. Therefore, dividing research subjects into two groups based on symptom counts may obscure important information about the ways in which psychopathology gradually emerges across development, how risk factors operate, and how quantitative outcomes of prevention and treatment trials can be implemented.
These problems, and others, suggest that in order to understand both the development and treatment of mental disorders, the field needs a comprehensive picture of typical and atypical brain and behavioral development across the lifespan. It is essential to find a way to increase knowledge concerning the biological, physiological, and behavioral components and mechanisms through which multiple and interacting mental-health risk and protective factors operate – a research framework that does not rely on disorder-based categories.
The RDoC project, launched in 2009, was the response to the growing awareness of these issues. The development of the RDoC matrix was the collaborative effort of over 200 leading scientists who worked together to articulate and define the knowledge for each of the domains and constructs in the matrix. Since its inception, RDoC has grown into a significant initiative for NIMH.” (2)