Analysis Of The DSM 5

Top researchers and clinicians from around the world to be members of our DSM-5 Task Force, Work Groups and Study Groups. These are experts in neuroscience, biology, genetics, statistics, epidemiology, social and behavioral sciences, nosology, and public health. These members participate on a strictly voluntary basis and encompass several medical and mental health disciplines including psychiatry, psychology, pediatrics, nursing and social work. (“Who was involved,” para. 6)

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).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has a number of features. First of all, every disorder is identified using a name and a numerical code. In addition, the manual provides the criteria for diagnosing each disorder as well as establishes subtypes of a disorder and examples that would illustrate the disorder. The manual goes further by addressing the typical age of onset, culturally related information, gender-related information, prevalence of a disorder, typical clinical course of a disorder, typical predisposing factors of a disorder and genetic family patterns of a disease (Summers, 2009). The DSM-IV is a tool that is used by mental health practitioners and social service workers. As has been demonstrated

While reading over the introduction to the DSM-5 I was impressed. I have never looked at any DSM or really any mental health disorders thus far in my studies. I was mostly impressed with the strive to continue making the DSM more useful and understanding. Some things that are in the introduction to the DSM-5 that caught my attention was that the Task Force was very involved in trying to find a balance between the different disorders without confusing them together (p. 5). Another point that I found important was that the overall goal for the DSM-5 was “the degree to which two clinicians could independently arrive at the same diagnosis for a given patient” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 7). This is a strong reasoning to improve the DSM and I am actually stocked that it took this long to change things because Robert Spritzer (a psychiatrist of the twentieth century who became have a strong part in developing the DSM-III and the DSM-IIIR), back in 1974 noticed the central issue being the problem of diagnosis and psychiatrists not being able to agree on the same disorders (Spiegel, 2005).

The statistics and facts above have demonstrated that removing Asperger’s Disorder from the DSM-5, as a mental health diagnosis, negatively affects an entire population of people, referred to as Aspies. The underlying issue is the power the DSM-5 manual has on overall mental health to determine identities, diagnosis, treatment health and mental health services, educational services and more. One DSM change has power to affect an entire population of people with developmental disabilities. It is important to understand how this affects our society as a whole by examining how this problem affects family, religion, government, and economy.

The DSM is used as a standard of reference for psychological diagnosis. The DSM was originally published in 1952 containing only 106 diagnoses; today the revised DSM-IV-TR contains 365 diagnoses. Throughout the history of the DSM, individuals in the mental health profession have relied on it for clarification of disorders, facilitating research, improving communication with other professionals and improving the collection of clinical information. With a new DSM-V underway, there has been a lot of issues surrounding the contents and classifications of the new DSM. There are

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

The Diagnostic and Statistical manual of mental Disorders also known as the DSM is used was published by the American Psychiatric Association as a way to set standard criteria for diagnosis of the different mental health conditions. Social workers, mental health practitioner and even researchers in order to, use this book to help them diagnose client. The book is intended to be used to make an initial assessment of symptoms that a patient might be facing and after the assessment is done then the clinicians can go about finding interventions to help the client overcome their disorder.

The general public increasingly attributes mental disorders to biological causes such as a chemical imbalance or inherited genes (Schnittker, 2008; Schomerus et al., 2012).

In 2013, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) broadly launched the Research Domain Criteria project (RDoC). The purpose of RDoC is to provide a working framework to advance dimensional approaches of classifying psychopathology on the basis of observable behaviors and neurobiological measures (National Institute of Mental Health, 2013). Reflecting on the last thirty years, incredible progress has been made in understanding brain-behavior relationships in numerous mental disorders. The continued interdisciplinary work of geneticists, cognitive and affective neuroscientists, and behavioral researchers has not only expanded our knowledge of biological causal and maintenance factors, but has also provided the field with a strong

DSM-IV TR, which stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition), Text Revision was published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2000 and serves as a guide book for many health professionals to diagnose a patient with a mental disorder. It also helps health professionals to determine what types of treatment could be carried out to help the patient. The latest DSM is widely used, especially in the USA and many European countries.1However, it may not be completely followed by health professionals as they know that there are some weaknesses of the latest version of DSM as well. This essay will discuss the strengths and

From time to time we all have periods of sadness, unhappy thoughts. Among the United States population, around eight to ten percent suffer from a form of depression as unipolar depression. Depressive and bipolar disorders show to be a principal cause of disability, without cure a person can have a tough experience with relationships, work, and social activities. Substance abuse disorders are becoming an rampant. The need for instant indulgence has become more and more widespread in the world. The DSM-5 shows the symptoms checklist for diagnosis of substance abuse disorder (see table 1.3 in appendix a), and according to Comer, (2014) “the substances people misuse fall into several categories: depressants, stimulants, hallucinogens, and cannabis”

Hi, Jake! I enjoyed reading your post. I agree with you that many people feel that DSM-5 diagnoses are too broad, and that the result is misdiagnosis. I don't remember the text mentioning that diagnoses are usually correct the majority of the time, but it makes sense. It's amazing to think that diagnoses can lead to research, appropriate treatment, and predict a disorder's future course. I'm so glad that we have come such a long way since the Middle Ages. I found it absolutely terrifying to learn that brutal treatments were used to "cure" psychological disorders back then. At least now with the DSM-5, we have a better way of treating and diagnosing those with disorders humanely and have a better understanding of what causes these

The DSM itself states “diagnosis require clinical judgment (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 19) indicating the fact that two therapist may see things differently. This concept would have to be considered a weakness as consensus is key validity and reliability of diagnosis and subsequent treatment. The article goes on to discuss the idea that the diagnosis of mental illness is more of an art form than a scientific process (Zur & Nordmarken, 2016). Finally, the most harsh factor against the DSM-5 is the outcry by leading professionals. The article points out that the chairman of its predecessor the DSM-4 Dr. Allen Frances was a critic of the DSM-5 from the very beginning. Change on any level is difficult so for Dr. Frances to urge caution is one; however, for him to say “this is the saddest moment in a 45 year career” to the American Psychiatric Association’s approval of the DSM-5 is troubling. Dr. Frances is not alone is his objection to this text. The director of the National Institute of Mental Health; Dr. Thomas Insel joined the opposition stating he will drive his organization’s research away from the DSM-5 (Zur & Nordmarken,

In this writer 's opinion, to sum and with the final surmising of all the data was made in a state of good psychological-deductive reasoning, and also was used by the Panel in their best judgment of clinical practices. The Panel, had the authority to be those persons who were commissioned to garner up the best experts in personality disorders, and were they assigned to establish the Work Group to their alternative proposed model of personality disorders (Section III, DSM-5). Henceforth there is one that should have been in muse and considered in deep thought, and with a sort of respective acknowledgment could have there be made one in the efforts to be utilized, and voted by the Board, to be overwhelmingly accepted simply because the proposed model made by the Work Group, was one to demonstrate that had been based on the current research and practice of both fields of psychology and psychiatry---and was pervasively accepted by both those clinicians and researchers who have immersed themselves very proudly and tirelessly in the up to date current findings based upon personality disorders and their syndromes in America and around the World. All in all, with regard to the former, should have voted by a landslide to permit the dimensional approach to outdate the categorical approach that for nearly sixty-years dominated the landscape of American Psychiatry and Psychology across every board. Because this is one of a well known fact whether one clinician to another accepts this