DSM-5 Field Trials Fail to Compare New Diagnostic Criteria with DSM-IV Criteria

Kermit Cole
2
95

Field trials for the DSM-5 fail to explicitly compare new proposed diagnostic criteria with those in the DSM-IV, a step that would be too costly and time-consuming according to vice-chair of the task force Darrel Regier. “You just don’t do science that way,” says Allen Frances, chairman of the DSM-IV task force and a critic of the DSM-5.

Article → 

Related Items:
Newsflash from APA Meeting: DSM-5 Has Flunked Its Reliability Tests (Huffington Post)
Updates to Psychiatric Guide Spur Controversy (Washington Post)
First DSM-5 Field Trials Generate Mixed Results (Medscape Today)
Psychiatry Manual Drafters Back Down on Diagnoses (New York Times)

Related “In the News” Items:
APA Proposes Alternative to Juvenile Bipolar
Incoming APA President Emphasizes “Positive Psychiatry”
Weak Field Trials Scuttle DSM-5 Diagnoses
DSM-5 Retreats from Some Controversial Diagnoses
Ethics Complaints Over DSM Filed With the APA

***

Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.

Previous articleIncoming APA President Emphasizes “Positive Psychiatry”
Next articleMy “Head in a Bucket” Metaphor
Kermit Cole
Kermit Cole, MFT, founding editor of Mad in America, works in Santa Fe, New Mexico as a couples and family therapist. Inspired by Open Dialogue, he works as part of a team and consults with couples and families that have members identified as patients. His work in residential treatment — largely with severely traumatized and/or "psychotic" clients — led to an appreciation of the power and beauty of systemic philosophy and practice, as the alternative to the prevailing focus on individual pathology. A former film-maker, he has undergraduate and master's degrees in psychology from Harvard University, as well as an MFT degree from the Council for Relationships in Philadelphia. He is a doctoral candidate with the Taos Institute and the Free University of Brussels. You can reach him at [email protected]

2 COMMENTS

  1. “Expand the scientific basis for psychiatric diagnosis and clarification”……….

    There is no science in the bible of psychiatry, only flim-flammery and snake oil recipes. If this were any other gruup in America they would be prosecuted for fraud and false advertizing, but science it’s the marriage of biopsychiatry and Bif Pharma, the law allows them to go merrily on their way, harming people and destroying lives. There is no science, only an attempt to pathologize human life so that everyone can be caught up in the net for labeling and drugging. PTSD is not a mental illness, no matter how much they try to say it is. It is the normal response of human beings to horrible events and experiences. ADHD doesn’t esist but was a marriage of teachers and parents with Big Pharma to drug difficult kids so they wouldn’t have to be dealt with. How do you call it science when a psychiatrist who doesn’t even look at you or actually engage you but spends ten minutes writing on their notepad and walla, they come up with a whopping awful label for you that has consequences for you for the rest of your life; how is that science. If it’s science, why will seven different psychiatrists come up with seven different diagnoses for you? Let us be frank and to the point: the emperor has no clothes! Let us quit the pretension that he is not naked as a jaybird! The DSM is the tool of the little man behind the curtain pretending to be the mighty and powerful Wizard. It is the tool used by Big Pharma to sacrifice thousands of us on its altar of large profits. There is no science to this at all but the manipulation of mirrors and the work of flim-flam artists!

LEAVE A REPLY