Hire Writer Compared to the older versions of the DSM, the latest DSM also has more subtypes and specifiers which increases the diagnostic specificity. As I mentioned before, this increases the chance of diagnosing a patient with the same disorder in different clinics, assuring that they are diagnosed with the correct disorder as misdiagnosing them could possibly lead to serious damage. For some disorders, such as bipolar disorder, there are severity indicators such as mild, moderate and severe as well.
How it clarifies, how it blinds psychiatrists to issues in need of investigation by Simon Sobo, M. It is argued that DSM IV cannot be assessed in a vacuum, by only examining its successes and failures at accomplishing its goals.
Accurate descriptions and definitions of syndromes are an important guidepost. This job has generally been done well, especially given the expectation that it will be reevaluated and rewritten often, so that future versions will improve upon shortcomings.
Nevertheless, a critique of DSM IV must also address the uses it has been put to, including ways that it can be, and is, being misused.
DSM IVs principles are sound. Scientific investigation is unrivaled as the way to eventually understand clinical phenomena. But, clinical work is not a laboratory. If we were to limit our decisions to scientifically proven information we would be incapacitated, since scientifically valid answers oftentimes do not, as yet, exist.
Given the choice between what is understood and proven through scientific method and what is, in essenceopinion or formulation, science should command absolute loyalty.
More importantly, in certain clinical contexts, focusing on a diagnosis may not be the best way to help patients deal with their psychopathology. For the layman and many clinicians, making a diagnosis implies the patient has a distinct illness, in the same way as a patient might have a tumor or an infection.
But that may not be true of most psychiatric disorders. DSM IV diagnoses are based on operational definitions, rather than pathogenesis or etiology.
They are necessarily preliminary, particularly well suited for research purposes. But they are too easily reified and broadened far beyond scientific justification. Moreoever when applying a diagnosis to a given patient the process can be a stretch, given current definitions.
Spectrum disorders are a tempting stopgap, creating new diagnostic categories to encompass evolving thinking.
But, if this is based on reification it will get us nowhere. Making DSM V more inclusive will not fix the problem, especially if derived from this misunderstanding of what a diagnosis represents in the first place.
The overly frequent need to diagnose patients with multiple diagnosis should raise a red flag. While finding comorbidities is consistent with guidelines, it may also indicate basic deficiencies in our understanding. In physical medicine, more than one diagnosis is not uncommon, but psychiatric patients are so regularly diagnosed with more than one DSM IV disorder that we must consider the possibility that many current diagnoses are failing to broadly enough capture and define psychopathology.
Finally, given its shortcomings, questions are raised as to whether DSM IV and the banner of science as opposed to the substance exerts too much control in psychiatric training programs, research, journal content, clinical practice and theory.
We can only know as much or as little as we know. Some of the shortcomings are not intrinsic.
Busy clinicians count on the information fed to them by those in universities who have the time to sort out proper treatments. They may not be getting an objective presentation. It is argued that unfortunately understanding the culture of psychiatry is as important as the science.
Who are the movers of the ideas that take hold? Are their motivations always driven by scientific curiosity, a passion to get at the truth, or is something else involved?
For example, does a flurry of articles on a given topic represent exciting new findings the usual in science or stepped up marketing. Big Pharma, Bad Medicine These topics can generate a lot of heat, ad hominem passions and prejudices, the greatest divergence from scientific discourse imaginable.
Nevertheless, if we hope to assess DSM IVs strengths and shortcomings there is no way around this aspect of it. We must step into the ring. This essay will not be the final word in this discussion, but hopefully it will accomplish what good therapy does.
Bring the unspoken to the surface so as to clarify key, yet evaded issues, elicit other questions, and move the discussion along.
The earlier diagnostic manual DSM II, had less specific descriptions and very poor inter rater reliability, completely unacceptable for those demanding scientific exactness.Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of DSM-IV TR, as well as new changes for DSM-V.
DSM-IV TR, which stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition), Text. The Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD symptoms and is based on DSM-5 The reliability and validity of the English and Spanish Strengths and Weaknesses of. In this lesson, we'll discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the DSM, known as the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published.
The strengths and weaknesses of DSM III and IV are explored. It is argued that DSM IV cannot be assessed in a vacuum, by only examining its successes and failures at accomplishing its goals. It is argued that DSM IV cannot be assessed in a vacuum, by only examining its successes and failures at accomplishing its goals.
Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of DSM-IV TR, as well as new changes for DSM-V. 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 and serves as a guide book for many health.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the DSM-IV Classification System for Diagnosing Psychopathology Introduction: DSM-IV as a system of diagnosis has been criticised on its very foundation that far from improving the clinical practice it claims to have prioritised.