Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
DSM disorders and their criteria: how should they inter-relate?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
DSM disorders and their criteria: how should they inter-relate?
Do you wish to request the book?
DSM disorders and their criteria: how should they inter-relate?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
DSM disorders and their criteria: how should they inter-relate?
2017
Overview
While the changes in psychiatric diagnosis introduced by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual third edition (DSM-III) have had major benefits to the field of psychiatry, the reification of its diagnostic criteria and the widespread adoption of diagnostic literalism have been problematic. I argue that, at root, these developments can be best understood by contrasting two approaches to the relationship between DSM disorders and their criteria. In a constitutive relationship, criteria definitively define the disorder. Having a disorder is nothing more than meeting the criteria. In an indexical relationship, the criteria are fallible indices of a disorder understood as a hypothetical, tentative diagnostic construct. I trace the origins of the constitutive model to the philosophical theory of operationalism. I then examine a range of historical and empirical results that favor the indexical over the constitutive position including (i) evidence that individual criteria for DSM-III were selected from a broader pool of possible symptoms/signs, (ii) revisions of DSM have implicitly assumed an indexical criteria-disorder relationship, (iii) the indexical position allows DSM criteria to be wrong and misdiagnose patients while such a result is incoherent for a constitutive model, an implausible position, (iv) we assume an indexical criteria-scale relationships for many personality and symptom measures commonly used in psychiatric practice and research, and (v) empirical studies suggesting similar performance for DSM and non-DSM symptoms for major depression. I then review four reasons for the rise of the constitutive position: (i) the ‘official’ nature of the DSM criteria, (ii) the strong investment psychiatry has had in the DSM manual and its widespread use and success, iii) lack of a clear pathophysiology for our disorders, and (iv) the absence of informative diagnostic signs of minimal clinical importance. I conclude that the constitutive position is premature and reflects a conceptual error. It assumes a definitiveness and a literalism about the nature of our criteria that is far beyond our current knowledge. The indexical position with its tentativeness and modesty accurately reflects the current state of our field.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
