{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022092267706302793, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.968325791855204, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 3, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Developmental Psychopathology and the Research Domain Criteria: Friend or Foe?

Developmental psychopathology (DP) is a conceptual approach to the study of the origins and course of individual patterns in the development of psychopathology across the lifespan. The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework aims to study dimensions of neurobiology and behavior to construct a new classification of psychopathology that will advance the understanding and treatment of mental disorders. In this commentary, we describe aspects of overall convergence and divergence between these two approaches. Developmental psychopathology and RDoC overlap, in that they both (a) study the full range of variation from normality to psychopathology, (b) aim to understand the origins and mechanisms underlying psychopathology, (c) use multiple units of analysis to study salient domains of functioning, and (d) emphasize the importance of using reliable and valid measurement. There also are several differences between these perspectives. For example, RDoC is exclusively dimensional, whereas DP studies both continuities and discontinuities. According to RDoC, mental disorders are brain disorders and neurocircuitry is primary, whereas DP asserts that the development of psychopathology results from dynamic transactions among neurobiology, psychology, and social contexts. We conclude by identifying ways to leverage the DP and RDoC perspectives to advance progress in both, particularly regarding research and intervention for children and adolescents.