A funny thing happened to us on the way to the latent entities.
Inferred latent entities, whether those of psychoanalysis, factor analysis, or cluster analysis, have declined in value for many clinical psychologists, both as tools of practice and as objects of theoretical interest. Behavior modification, rational-emotive therapy, crisis intervention, psycho-pharmacology, and actuarial prediction all tend to minimize reliance on latent entities in favor of purely dispositional concepts. Behavior genetics is, however, a powerful movement to the contrary. As regards categorical entities (types, taxa, syndromes, diseases), history reveals no impressive examples of their discovery by cluster algorithms; whereas organic medicine and psychopathology have both discovered many taxonic entities without reliance on formal (statistical) cluster methods. I offer eight reasons for this strange condition, with associated suggestions for ameliorating it. Adopting a realist instead of a fictionist approach to taxonomy, I give high priority to theory-based mathematical derivation of quantitative consistency tests for all taxometric results. I urge a large scale cooperative survey of taxometric methods based on Monte Carlo runs, biological pseudoproblems where the true axon is independently known, and live problem in genetics, organic medicine, and psychopathology. An empirical example of taxometric bootstrapping and consistency testing was presented from my own current research on schizotypy.
D006801:Humans; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis; D011581:Psychological Tests; D011586:Psychology, Clinical; D011613:Psychotherapy / Q000379:methods; D013029:Space-Time Clustering