Why is it hard to assess thought disorder? Clarifying the third domain of psychosis.
L Palaniyappan, Vanteemar S Sreeraj, Ganesan Venkatasubramanian, A Voppel
Schizophrenia Research June 1, 2026 DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2026.02.018 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Systematic review Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Population | Individuals with psychosis |
| Topics | Philosophy of mind |
| Keywords | Cognition Disorganization Measurement Natural language processing Negative symptoms Psychopathology Speech |
| Citations | 5 |
| Key findings | Empirical evidence contradicts the assumption that Formal Thought Disorder is a natural kind; instead, it should be measured as a Constituted Practical Entity—a probabilistic cluster of interacting linguistic-cognitive features. |
Abstract
Formal Thought Disorder (FTD) presents psychiatry's central paradox: it is one of the robust predictors of poor outcomes and polygenic risk in psychosis yet remains poorly defined and rarely measured clinically. We systematically reviewed 50 years of FTD assessment (16 rating scales, 32 factor analyses) to understand this paradox. Research to date has implicitly treated FTD as a natural kind, a latent entity that causes observable signs. Yet, empirical evidence contradicts this assumption: we find radical heterogeneity in construct definition, non-replicability of factor structures at the item level, and no universally essential properties across items. We propose measuring FTD as a Constituted Practical Entity: a probabilistic cluster of linguistic-cognitive features whose interaction produces communication failure. In this framework, no single feature is necessary or sufficient; dysfunction emerges from their relationships, not from a single latent process. This reconceptualization reconciles the multi-dimensional nature of FTD with our attempts to measure it and offers a clear research path: establish consensus constituents, measure their interactions, and develop computational tools. Without addressing the conceptual foundations, technical advances will only perpetuate existing confusions. Our framework clarifies what is being measured in the name of FTD and guides the development of computational tools and clinically meaningful targets for this third domain of psychosis.
Comparable studies
Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on philosophy of mind, most cited first.
| Study | Year | Design | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|
| The brain in flow: A systematic review on the neural basis of the flow state. Participants in studies measuring or manipulating flow state with brain activity recording | 2022 | Systematic review | n = 471 |
| Synergistic, multi-level understanding of psychedelics: three systematic reviews and meta-analyses of their pharmacology, neuroimaging and phenomenology. | 2024 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | |
| Evidence synthesis indicates contentless experiences in meditation are neither truly contentless nor identical Expert texts from Shamatha, Transcendental, and Stillness Meditation traditions | 2022 | Systematic review | n = 135 |
| Novel psychoactive substances (NPS) use in severe mental illness (SMI) patients: Potential changes in the phenomenology of psychiatric diseases Patients with severe mental illness (SMI), such as psychotic patients | 2017 | Systematic review | |
| Scoping review on shamanistic trances practices. | 2024 | Systematic review |