For decades, experiential measures (i.e., self- and informant-report) have dominated clinical psychological science as the primary methods of investigating the nature, causes, and consequences of psychopathology. Recent efforts to understand psychopathology in a comprehensive manner, bridging across measurement modalities and study designs, have yielded disappointing results and small cross-domain effect sizes. This problem has stymied progress in diagnosing and treating mental illness. We contend that we continue to struggle to link different units of analysis in psychopathology research because, as a field, we have not learned the lessons that have been detailed in the literature since at least the 1950s. We argue that our reliance on single units of analysis (e.g., only self-report or only neuroimaging) to conceptualize and operationalize psychological constructs lies at the heart of our struggles. Conflation of a construct with its operationalization in a single measurement modality fundamentally limits the ability to understand its manifestation in other units of analysis. To make progress toward a fine-grained understanding of the symptoms, signs, and mechanisms of psychopathology, we must move past the siloed reification of constructs and prioritize new, integrated research paradigms. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

临床心理科学桥接分析单元的挑战和前进方向。

几十年来，经验测量（即自我报告和知情者报告）一直主导临床心理科学，作为研究精神病理学的性质、原因和后果的主要方法。最近以全面的方式理解精神病理学、跨测量模式和研究设计的努力取得了令人失望的结果和较小的跨领域效应。这个问题阻碍了诊断和治疗精神疾病的进展。我们认为，我们继续努力将精神病理学研究中的不同分析单位联系起来，因为作为一个领域，我们还没有吸取至少自 20 世纪 50 年代以来文献中详细介绍的经验教训。我们认为，我们依赖单一分析单位（例如，仅自我报告或仅神经影像）来概念化和操作化心理结构是我们斗争的核心。将构造与其在单一测量模式中的操作化合并从根本上限制了理解其在其他分析单位中的表现的能力。为了在对精神病理学的症状、体征和机制的精细理解方面取得进展，我们必须超越孤立的具体化结构，优先考虑新的、综合的研究范式。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA，保留所有权利）。