„Comorbidity“ among mental disorders is commonly observed in both clinical and epidemiological samples. The robustness of this observation is rarely questioned; however, what is at issue is its meaning. Is comorbidity „noise“ – nuisance covariance that researchers should eliminate by seeking „pure“ cases for their studies – or a „signal“ – an indication that current diagnostic systems are lacking in parsimony and are not „carving nature at its joints?“ (Krueger, p. 921). With these words, Krueger started a discussion on the structure of mental disorders, which suggested that a 3-factor model of common mental disorders existed in the community. These common factors were labeled „anxious-misery,“ „fear“ (constituting facets of a higher-order internalizing factor), and „externalizing.“ Along with similar evidence from personality research and psychometric explorations and selective evidence from genetic and psychopharmacologic studies, Krueger suggested that this model might not only be phenotypically relevant, but might actually improve our understanding of core processes underlying psychopathology. Since then, this suggestion has become an influential, yet also controversial topic in the scientific community, and has received attention particularly in the context of the current revision process of the Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-V) and the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). Focusing on anxiety disorders, this article critically discusses the methods and findings of this work, calls into question the model’s developmental stability and utility for clinical use and clinical research, and challenges the wide-ranging implications that have been linked to the findings of this type of exploration. This critical appraisal is intended to flag several significant concerns about the method. In particular, the concerns center around the tendency to attach wide-ranging implications (eg, in terms of clinical research, clinical practice, public health, diagnostic nomenclature) to the undoubtedly interesting statistical explorations.

Despite a wealth of studies on differences regarding the biobehavioral and social–psychological bases of mental disorders in men and women and repeated calls for increased attention, women-specific issues have so far not been comprehensively addressed in past diagnostic classification systems of mental disorders. There is also increasing evidence that this situation will not change significantly in the upcoming revisions of ICD-11 and DSM-V. This paper explores reasons for this continued failure, highlighting three major barriers: the fragmentation of the field of women's mental health research, lack of emphasis on diagnostic classificatory issues beyond a few selected clinical conditions, and finally, the “current rules of game” used by the current DSM-V Task Forces in the revision process of DSM-V. The paper calls for concerted efforts of researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders within a more coherent and comprehensive framework aiming at broader coverage of women-specific diagnostic classificatory issues in future diagnostic systems.

Despite a wealth of studies on differences regarding the biobehavioral and social–psychological bases of mental disorders in men and women and repeated calls for increased attention, women-specific issues have so far not been comprehensively addressed in past diagnostic classification systems of mental disorders. There is also increasing evidence that this situation will not change significantly in the upcoming revisions of ICD-11 and DSM-V. This paper explores reasons for this continued failure, highlighting three major barriers: the fragmentation of the field of women's mental health research, lack of emphasis on diagnostic classificatory issues beyond a few selected clinical conditions, and finally, the “current rules of game” used by the current DSM-V Task Forces in the revision process of DSM-V. The paper calls for concerted efforts of researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders within a more coherent and comprehensive framework aiming at broader coverage of women-specific diagnostic classificatory issues in future diagnostic systems.

„Comorbidity“ among mental disorders is commonly observed in both clinical and epidemiological samples. The robustness of this observation is rarely questioned; however, what is at issue is its meaning. Is comorbidity „noise“ – nuisance covariance that researchers should eliminate by seeking „pure“ cases for their studies – or a „signal“ – an indication that current diagnostic systems are lacking in parsimony and are not „carving nature at its joints?“ (Krueger, p. 921). With these words, Krueger started a discussion on the structure of mental disorders, which suggested that a 3-factor model of common mental disorders existed in the community. These common factors were labeled „anxious-misery,“ „fear“ (constituting facets of a higher-order internalizing factor), and „externalizing.“ Along with similar evidence from personality research and psychometric explorations and selective evidence from genetic and psychopharmacologic studies, Krueger suggested that this model might not only be phenotypically relevant, but might actually improve our understanding of core processes underlying psychopathology. Since then, this suggestion has become an influential, yet also controversial topic in the scientific community, and has received attention particularly in the context of the current revision process of the Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-V) and the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). Focusing on anxiety disorders, this article critically discusses the methods and findings of this work, calls into question the model’s developmental stability and utility for clinical use and clinical research, and challenges the wide-ranging implications that have been linked to the findings of this type of exploration. This critical appraisal is intended to flag several significant concerns about the method. In particular, the concerns center around the tendency to attach wide-ranging implications (eg, in terms of clinical research, clinical practice, public health, diagnostic nomenclature) to the undoubtedly interesting statistical explorations.