A State Of Good Psychological Reasoning

It is sometimes argued that “the creators of DSM-III and DSM-IV sacrificed validity for the sake of reliability”(Wakefield, 1992, cited in Gray, 2002, p 614). This refers to greater emphasis being placed upon superficial symptoms and less upon underlying symptoms and possible cause which could have an important influence upon individuals (Gray, 2002). Since behavior always involve interaction between the individual and their environment, it can be difficult to assess whether the disorder is within the person or whether it is an environmental influence such as a traumatic experience or related to poverty (Gray, 2002, p.612). This can cause problems when diagnosing is extremely difficult to scientifically distinguish between people’s normal responses or whether it is something more (Gray, 2002).

Personality disorders have a sex prevalence rate and there has been some suggestion that those rates reflect gender bias. The bias concerns derived from the “conceptualization of personality disorders, the wording of diagnostic criteria, the application of diagnostic criteria, thresholds for diagnosis, clinical presentation, researching sampling, the self-awareness and openness of patients and the items included within self-report inventories” (Butcher, 2009, p. 356). Studies have failed to prove that there is significant gender bias in the DSM. However, research has showed there is gender bias within clinical judgments. For example, gender related items would be included within self-report inventories (Butcher, 2009). Clinicians tend to judge female patients as being mentally ill more readily than male patients, even when the symptoms are the same. Moreover, women are more likely to be cast as overly emotional, have a need for mood-altering medication and require ongoing monitoring/treatment (Zur and Nordmarken, 2010).

Personality disorders are included as mental disorders on Axis II of the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association and in the mental and behavioral disorders section of the ICD manual of the World Health Organization Personality disorders are conditions in which an individual differs significantly from an average person, in terms of how they think, perceive, feel or relate to others. Changes in how a person feels and distorted beliefs about other people can lead to odd behavior, which can be distressing and may upset others There are three recognized personality disorder clusters, cluster A odd and eccentric, Paranoid Personality Disorder Schizoid Personality Disorder Schizotypal Personality Disorder dramatic and emotional, Borderline Personality Disorder Histrionic Personality Disorder Narcissistic Personality Disorder and anxious and fearful Avoidant Personality Disorder Dependent Personality Disorder Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder Personality Disorders: Management

The first major controversy concerning classifications of mental disorders is the debate over dimensions vs. categories. According to the APA (2000), DSM–IV is a categorical classification that divides mental disorders into types based on criterion sets with defining features. Categories have been utilized in the past DSMs, however there has been much debate on changing to the dimensional model. The debate stems from the notion that in order for a categorical diagnosis to relate specifically to a disorder, the pathology would have to have been largely resilient to the influence of many other genetic and environmental influences (Widiger & Sankis, 2000). On the contrast, utilizing the dimensional model for a diagnosis would utilize a wide variety of neurochemical, interpersonal, cognitive, and other mediating and moderating variables that help to develop, shape, and form a particular individual’s psychopathology profile (Andreasen, 1997).

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), “the essential feature of

The controversy and criticism surrounding the DSM -5 models has raised questions about its credibility and has raised concerns from the public on the reliability and effectiveness. Problems with this classification system is the attempt to promote preventive psychiatry by introducing how

Ever since my later adolescence years, I have always been intrigued by the diverse complexity of the human brain. Numerous days I have sat down obtrusively observing my surroundings just to satisfy my curiosity on how individuals think, reason and problem solve everyday life happenings. As such, when it was time to attend university, I decided to study psychology as a means of gaining knowledge and understanding about individuals’ cognitive processes and their behavior. During my undergraduate studies, for a particular reason, I was struck by Abnormal Psychology and spent hours thinking about the various disorders captured by the then Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV). I spent an awful lot of time trying to understand the differing disorders and how their impact on the behavior and thinking processes of individuals that are diagnosed with them.

Within the realms of psychology, classification systems are imperative and allow for appropriate organization and proper descriptions of a patient’s psychological diagnosis. (Hunsley, J. & Lee, M. Catherine, 2010). Classification is a central element of all branches of science and social science, and is how clinicians perform their job to diagnose patients. The two, main types of classification systems are the categorical approach and the dimensional approach. In a broad view, the categorical approach is an one in which a person or object is determined to either be a member of a specific category or not, and the dimensional approach is based on the assumption that the object or person being classified differs in the extent to which they possess certain characteristics and properties (Hunsley & Lee, 2010). The controversy over dimensional versus categorical approaches to diagnosis as manifested in the recent development and publication of the DSM-V is a debate that is one to take note of. Numerous limitations and benefits to both the categorical and dimensional approaches exist, and are widely discussed by researchers when speaking of the production of the DSM-V in regards to personality disorders (PDs). This paper will mainly focus on the diagnosing of one with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and how the changes from the categorical approach to dimensional approach in the recent

The diagnostic process for personality disorders currently covers a broad scope of various tests and symptoms, causing a source of frustration for psychiatrists (Aldhous). The symptoms and side effects of several personality disorders can tend to blur together, making diagnosis challenging (Aldhous). Most psychiatric patients are diagnosed with several personality disorders at once, with twenty percent of people with personality disorders simply diagnosed with a “personality disorder not otherwise specified” (Aldhous). Using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, commonly referred to as the DSM, psychiatrists attempt with great difficulty to categorize their patients into a specific disorder, only to diagnose

Dombeck, M., Hoermann, S., Zupanick, E.C. (2011). Personality Disorders: Problems with current diagnostic system. MentalHelp. Retrieved on 14th March, 2013, from http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=569

Personality disorders are very defined and recognized in today’s society. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association provides common language and standards classifying mental disorders. The DSM is used by many people in varying disciplines in the USA as well as many other countries. In times past, people with disorders may have been outcast from a community or even persecuted. However, in our current culture the pendulum has swung in the other direction. It almost seems that there is a trend to explain all behavior by a mental disorder. This results in needing to disprove that certain people are not displaying a disorder, rather acting within a normal human emotion or

Clinical reasoning can be defined as, ‘the process by which nurses (and other clinicians) collect cues, process the information, come to an understanding of a patient’s problem or situation, plan and implement interventions, evaluate outcomes and reflect on and learn from the process’ (Levett-Jones & Hoffman 2013, p.4). It requires health professionals to be able to think critically and ensures better engagement and results for the patient (Tanner 2006, p.209). The Quality in Australian Healthcare Study (Wilson 1995, p.460) discovered that ‘cognitive failure’ resulted in approximately 57% of unfavourable clinical events involving the failure to produce and act correctly on clinical information. It also recognises that often nurse’s preconceptions and assumptions can greatly affect patient care and by going through such a process, one can take into account the holistic nature of the patient and provide the best, most appropriate care.

For the purposes of remaining anonymous, throughout the evaluation the subject will be known as John Doe. Mr. Doe suffers from undiagnosed bipolar disorder, which results in mood swings with stern thoughts brought on by severe stress. John Doe returns home with his parents after being released from an institution and forced to continue therapy. The assessment will look into John Doe’s disorder through the psychologists six theoretical models.

This gives rise to the issue of comorbidity. a problem that means “those meeting the criteria for a diagnosis one personality disorder will also meet the criteria for diagnosis for another personality disorder” (Larsen, 614).

There are three main ways to be diagnosed with a personality disorder. The first is a physical exam, this will determine if there is an underlying medical problem. The exam can include lab tests and possible screening for alcohol and/or drugs. The next step is a psychiatric evaluation. During this evaluation the patient and their doctor should discuss the patient’s feelings, their thoughts, and of course their behavior. This evaluation can include a survey in regards to the patient and can include their