Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Dsm 5 study
Dsm 5 study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Dsm 5 study
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) provides standard criteria for diagnosing mental disorders. It serves numerous purposes and delineates a common language for researchers, clinicians, educators and students. The APA released the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical manual of mental disorders in May 2013 after 12 years of research involving a diverse range of 400 experts from 12 countries worldwide (Kuhl, Kupfer, & Reiner, 2013). While the release of the new DSM 5 has caused much controversy in the field of psychiatry, specifically for its changes in specific diagnosis and new disorders, the structural changes that have been made seem to be an improvement from the previous DSM IV and will help clinicians diagnose and treat patients in a more straightforward and precise way. One of the most debated proposals for the DSM 5 was a proposal to re-structure the DSM into five clusters of mental disorders that shared certain external validating factors. While this proposal was not entirely adopted in the actual DSM 5, many concepts and ideas from this proposed idea were used. The idea behind this metastructure originated from advances in the field of psychiatry since the DSM IV that demonstrated that many disorders share external validating factors such as genetic risk factors, rates of co-morbidity, and likely course (Andrews, Goldberg, Krueger, Carpenter, Hyman, Sachdev, & Pine, 2009). These ideas were backed up by twin studies that showed how important genetic and environmental risk factors are and raised concerns about the current structure of the DSM IV, because it focused more on excluding false-positive results in diagnosis. Consequently, categorical groups were too limited and this resu... ... middle of paper ... ...nd Cautions for the DSM-5 Future. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 109-130. Jablensky, A. (2009). A meta-commentary on the proposal for a meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine, 39(12), 2099. Kuhl, E.J., Kupfer, D. J., & Reiner, D.A. (2013). The DSM-5: Classification and criteria changes. World Psychiatry, 12, 92-98. Vatnaland, T., J. Vatnaland, S. Friis, and S. Opjordsmoen. "Are GAF scores reliable in routine clinical use?." Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 115.4 (2007): 326- 330. Print. Wakefield, J. C. (2013). DSM-5: An Overview of Changes and Controversies. Clinical Social Work Journal, 41(2), 139-154. Wittchen, H., Beesdo, K., & Gloster, A. T. (2009). A new meta-structure of mental disorders: a helpful step into the future or a harmful step back to the past?. Psychological Medicine, 39(12), 2083.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
This fifth revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM will be the standard classification of mental disorders (Nauert, 2011). Mental health professionals and other health professionals will use this standard in their diagnoses and researches. The American Psychiatric Association released a draft of proposed changes after a decade of review and revision by the Association. Allen Frances, chairman and editor of DSM IV, and Robert Spitzer, editor of DSM III, expressed objections to the task force conducting the revisions and the proposed revisions. Present chairman is David Kupfer and vice chairman is Darrel Regier (Nauert; Collier, 2010).
Kaplan, H. I., Sadock, B. J., & Grebb, J. A. (1994). Synopsis of psychiatry: behavioral sciences,
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Frances, A., & Ross, R. (1996). DSM-IV case studies a clinical guide to differential diagnosis. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.
middle of paper ... ... Retrieved June 16, 2002, from http://nimh.nih.gov/publicat/numbers.cfm. National Mental Health Association. 2000 May 15.
Liddle, H A., Rowe, C L., Dakof, G A., Henderson, C E., Greenbaum, P E.; (Feb, 2009). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology; Vol 77(1); 12-25. Doi: 10.1177/0306624X10366960
Kaut, K. P., & Dickinson, J.A. (2007). The mental health practitioner and psychopharmacology. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 29(3), 204–225.
Mcbride, Carolina. Zuroff, David. Ravitz, Paula. Koestner, Richard. Moskowitz, Debbie. Quilty, Lena. Bagby, Michael. (2010). British Journal of Clinical Psychology. , 49(4), p529-545.
The DSM has been found to be somewhat bias. There are some pros and cons to the DSM as well. Some have found that it leads to uniform and improved diagnosis, improves informed professional communication through uniformity, and provides the basis for a comprehensive educational tool. While others believe it can lead to diagnostic labels, by providing limited information on the relationship between environmental considerations and aspects of the mental health condition. Lastly, it does not describe intervention strategies (Wakefield,
Kahn, Ada P., and Jan Fawcett. The Encyclopedia of Mental Health. 2nd ed. New York: Facts On File, 2001.
...chiatric Association. (2012). “Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders” (4th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Identification of any psychosocial or contextual factors to be considered, as outlined in the DSM-5
Kendell, R. and Jablensky, A. (2003), Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses, American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 160, No. 1, pp. 4-12.
Spiegel, D., Loewenstein, R. J., Lewis-Fernández, R., Sar, V., Simeon, D., Vermetten, E., & ... Dell, P. F. (2011). Dissociative disorders in DSM-5. Depression & Anxiety (1091-4269), 28(9), 824-852. doi:10.1002/da.20874