Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 21 - Non-human primate models in understanding anxiety

  • from Section 3 - Understanding the causes of anxiety
  • Edited by Helen Blair Simpson, Columbia University, New York, Yuval Neria, Columbia University, New York, Roberto Lewis-Fernández, Columbia University, New York, Franklin Schneier, Columbia University, New York
  • Book:
    Anxiety Disorders
    Published online:
    10 November 2010
    Print publication:
    26 August 2010, pp 239-248

  • Summary

    This chapter addresses the complex inter relationships between anxiety disorders (ADs) and personality disorders (PDs), including diagnostic controversies, patterns of comorbidity, and prognostic implications for treatment. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III) created five axes for diagnostic classification, including Axis I for illnesses such as ADs and Axis II for PDs. The presence of an Axis I state disorder may confound diagnosis of Axis II trait. The biopsychosocial model suggests that illness arises from the interplay of genetic, trait, and environmental influences. PDs are less prevalent than ADs. Limited information exists on the comorbidity between ADs and PDs in the general population. Available data suggest that PD comorbidity among ADs is common, except in the case of specific phobia. Current evidence yields more questions than answers, due in part to the complexity of assessing PDs and the labor and expense of large-scale, longitudinal studies.

  • Modeling psychopathology structure: a symptom-level analysis of Axis I and II disorders

  • K. E. Markon
  • Journal:
    Psychological Medicine / Volume 40 / Issue 2 / February 2010
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 June 2009, pp. 273-288
  • Background

    Analyses of co-morbidity patterns among common mental disorders have repeatedly indicated that relationships among disorders can be understood in terms of broad superordinate dimensions. However, these analyses have been based on syndromal-level indicators, which are often heterogeneous, rather than on symptoms, which are presumably more homogeneous.

    Method

    Symptom-level exploratory and confirmatory analyses were used to explore the joint hierarchical organization of Axis I and II psychopathology, using data on 8405 individuals from the 2000 British Psychiatric Morbidity Survey.

    Results

    Analyses indicated that 20 identified subordinate dimensions of psychopathology could be organized into four broad superordinate dimensions: Internalizing, Externalizing, Thought Disorder, and Pathological Introversion.

    Conclusions

    These results extend existing model frameworks ‘downward’ as well as ‘outward’, by analyzing symptoms rather than diagnoses, and by integrating symptoms from Axis I and II disorders in a common framework. This model demonstrates the importance of hierarchy in psychopathology structure, comprises replicable features of psychopathology structure, and has important implications for understanding the nature and organization of mental disorders.