Behavioral scientists produce a vast amount of research every year yet struggle to produce cumulative knowledge that is easily translated in applied settings. This article summarizes a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine consensus report on the development and use of ontologies to accelerate the behavioral sciences. The report examines key challenges in the behavioral and psychological sciences motivating an evaluation of ontology use and development in the behavioral sciences. The advantages of ontologies, including enhanced organization and retrieval of research evidence, improved scientific communication, reduction of duplication, and enhanced scientific replicability, are highlighted. Challenges that may impede the development and use of ontologies in the behavioral sciences are also considered. The article concludes with future directions for fulfilling the promise of ontologies to accelerate the behavioral and psychological sciences.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders (5th ed.).
2.
AmithM.HeZ.BianJ.Lossio-VenturaJ. A.TaoC. (2018). Assessing the practice of biomedical ontology evaluation: Gaps and opportunities. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 80, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2018.02.010
BlanchA.GarciaR.PlanesJ.GilR.BaladaF.BlancoE.AlujaA. (2017). Ontologies about human behavior: A review of knowledge modeling systems. European Psychologist, 22(3), 180–197. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000295
5.
ChorpitaB. F.DaleidenE. L.EbesutaniC.YoungJ.BeckerK. D.NakamuraB. J.PhillipsL.WardA.LynchR.TrentL.SmithR. L.OkamuraK.StaraceN. (2011). Evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents: An updated review of indicators of efficacy and effectiveness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 18(2), 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2011.01247.x
6.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
7.
DavisR.CampbellR.HildonZ.HobbsL.MichieS. (2015). Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: A scoping review. Health Psychology Review, 9(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2014.941722
8.
du PlessisL.SkuncaN.DessimozC. (2011). The what, where, how and why of gene ontology-a primer for bioinformaticians. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 12(6), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbr002
9.
FalzonL. (2021). Scoping review of ontologies in the behavioral sciences. Paper prepared for the Committee on Accelerating Behavioral Science Through Ontology Development and Use.
10.
Gene Ontology Consortium. (2019). The Gene Ontology resource: 20 years and still going strong. Nucleic Acids Research, 47(D1), D330–D338. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1055
11.
GruberT. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008
12.
GruberT. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(5–6), 907–928. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081
13.
HastingsJ.SchultzS. (2012). Ontologies for human behavior analysis and their application to clinical data. In CheslerE. J.HaendelM. A. (Eds.), Bioinformatics of behavior: Part 1 (pp. 89–107). Elsevier.
14.
InselT.CuthbertB.GarveyM.HeinssenR.PineD. S.QuinnK.SanislowC.WangP. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748–751. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379
15.
JacksonR.MatentzogluN.OvertonJ. A.VitaR.BalhoffJ. P.ButtigiegP. L.CarbonS.CourtotM.DiehlA. D.DooleyD. M.DuncanW. D.HarrisN. L.HaendelM. A.LewisS. E.NataleD. A.Osumi-SutherlandD.RuttenbertA.SchrimlL. M.SmithB.. . . PetersB. (2021). OBO foundry in 2021: Operationalizing open data principles to evaluate ontologies. Database, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baab069
16.
KaplanR. M.BeattyA. S. (2022). Ontologies in the behavioral sciences: Accelerating research and the spread of knowledge. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
17.
KelleyT. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. World Book Co.
18.
KotovR.KruegerR. F.WatsonD.CiceroD. C.ConwayC. C.DeYoungC. G.EatonN. R.ForbesM. K.HallquistM. N.LatzmanR. D.Mullins-SweattS. N.RuggeroC. J.SimmsL. J.WaldmanI. D.WaszczukM. A.WrightA. G. C. (2021). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A quantitative nosology based on consensus of evidence. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17, 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-093304
19.
LarsenK. R.MichieS.HeklerE. B.GibsonB.Spruijt-MetzD.AhernD.Cole-LewisH.Bartlett EllisR. J.HesseB.MoserR. P.YiJ. (2017). Behavior change interventions: The potential of ontologies for advancing science and practice. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 40(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9768-0
20.
LawsonK. M.RobinsR. W. (2021). Sibling constructs: What are they, why do they matter, and how should you handle them?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(4), 344–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211047101
21.
LilienfeldS. O.SauvigneK. C.LynnS. J.CautinR. L.LatzmanR. D.WaldmanI. D. (2015). Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid: A list of inaccurate, misleading, misused, ambiguous, and logically confused words and phrases. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1100. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01100
22.
MatentzogluN.MaloneJ.MungallC.StevensR. (2018). MIRO: Guidelines for minimum information for the reporting of an ontology. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 9(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-017-0172-7
23.
MichieS.ThomasJ.JohnstonM.AonghusaP. M.Shawe-TaylorJ.KellyM. P.DelerisL. A.FinnertyA. N.MarquesM. M.NorrisE.O’Mara-EvesA.WestR. (2017). The Human Behaviour-Change Project: Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning for evidence synthesis and interpretation. Implementation Science, 12(1), Article 121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0641-5
24.
MichieS.WestR.FinnertyA. N.NorrisE.WrightA. J.MarquesM. M.JohnstonM.KellyM. P.ThomasJ.HastingsJ. (2020). Representation of behaviour change interventions and their evaluation: Development of the upper level of the Behaviour Change Intervention Ontology. Wellcome Open Research, 5, Article 123. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15902.2
25.
MountjoyC. Q.RothM. (1982). Studies in the relationship between depressive disorders and anxiety states. Part 1. Rating scales. Journal of Affective Disorders, 4(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0327(82)90043-x
26.
National Science Board, National Science Foundation. (2021). Publications output: U.S. trends and international comparisons. Science and engineering indicators 2022. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20214
NorrisE.FinnertyA. N.HastingsJ.StokesG.MichieS. (2019). A scoping review of ontologies related to human behaviour change. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0511-4
29.
NoyN.TudoracheT.NyulasC.MusenM. (2010). The ontology life cycle: Integrated tools for editing, publishing, peer review, and evolution of ontologies. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2010, 552–556.
30.
OkamuraK. H.OrimotoT. E.NakamuraB. J.ChangB.ChorpitaB. F.BeidasR. S. (2020). A history of child and adolescent treatment through a distillation lens: Looking back to move forward. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 47(1), 70–85.
31.
PoldrackR. A.YarkoniT. (2016). From brain maps to cognitive ontologies: Informatics and the search for mental structure. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033729
SaikiaU.SharmaN.DasA. (2008). What is a species? An endless debate. Resonance: Journal of Science Education, 13(11), 1049–1064.
34.
StaabS.StuderR. (2016). Handbook on ontologies. Springer.
35.
ThorndikeE. L. (1904). An Introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. Science Press.
36.
WeiszJ. R.KuppensS.NgM. Y.EckshtainD.UguetoA. M.Vaughn-CoaxumR.Jensen-DossA.HawleyK. M.Krumholz MarchetteL. S.ChuB. C.WeersingV. R.FordwoodS. R. (2017). What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: A multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice. American Psychologist, 72(2), 79–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040360
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
