Talk:DSM-5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A separate article[edit]

DSM-V material will explode in size at some point. The different versions of ICD such as ICD-10 have their own separate articles so there seems no reason not to have a separate article for DSM-V.--Penbat (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Why "Statistical"[edit]

Will anyone explain why the task force members still keep the word "Statistical" in DSM-5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.217.70.179 (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Add link [1] "Behavioral Addictions Debut in Proposed DSM-V"[edit]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/327/5968/935 Science 19 February 2010: Vol. 327. no. 5968, p. 935 DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5968.935 NEWS OF THE WEEK PSYCHIATRY: "Behavioral Addictions Debut in Proposed DSM-V" by Constance Holden ... In psychiatry, the only disorders that have been considered addictions are those involving alcohol or other drugs. Now, proposed revisions for the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders include for the first time "behavioral addictions"—a change some say is long overdue and others say is still premature. So far, only one behavior has made the cut: gambling, which under the new proposal would join substance-use disorders as a full-fledged addiction.

Also, NEWS OF THE WEEK PSYCHIATRY "Proposed Revisions to Psychiatry's Canon Unveiled" by Greg Miller and Constance Holden (12 February 2010) Science (journal) 327 (5967), 770-a. [DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5967.770-a] 99.102.176.128 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the mainpage an EL regarding proposed changes to the sex/gender section of the DSM-5 ([2]). I am indicating that here, because I am the author of that article, so the decision about whether the link is relevant, counts as an RS under WP:V#SPS, or should be altogether removed should be made by others.— James Cantor (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

DSM-V wrong name[edit]

They already say the DSM will no longer use roman number, that they will use a 5 then 5.1 then 5.2 etc for every new change to the DSM till they reach number 6 and so on. Calling the DSM-V is wrong (except to clarify that it is not longer to be called DSM-V) anyone else agree that DSM-V should be changed to DSM-5 in this article an in other articles?
Alusky (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

er it already is except there are a old few refs that still use the old name and should be retained as the refs themselves say DSM-V.
DSM-V redirects here so I don't see a problem unless someone wants to take on a massive redaction D A Patriarche (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposals outside the process[edit]

There are many papers suggesting better language to help communicate with patients and between clinicians, as they already use "folk speak." If the AMA does not adapt these ideas, then they will be in the criticism section for the main article when the DSM-5 is adopted. A side note to this is the idea of adapting traits into personality disorders, as that is where the PDs come from, in theory at least. This would improve the language, and possibly categorize better. I took the idea one step further, that is to use the methods of the lexical analysis of traits, the basis of the Five Factor Model, to digest the entire diagnostic lexicon into a taxonomy; and perhaps in-so-doing, organize the entire mess in the same way the FFM organizes traits.--John Bessa (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When will this be published?[edit]

The article says that the DSM V will be published in May 2013, but I thought it was going to be published in May 2012. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

looks like dsm-5 now approved[edit]

https://aacp.com/Pages.asp?AID=11068&issue=February_2013&page=C&UID=

--Penbat (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

COI of creators of dsm-5[edit]

Shouldn't this article have something along the lines of [Medicalization and financial conflicts of interest] section? Blackash have a chat 05:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please find good, secondary sources, then be bold and add a subsection on "Medicalization_and_financial_conflicts_of_interest" that is specific for the DSM-5! Lova Falk talk 15:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage[edit]

Media coverage of criticisms is at a high level, USA Today being an example. I will try to add this to article.(User:Mercurywoodrose)76.254.32.86 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

And it would appear that criticism is well-founded when the head of the DSM IV warns about "false epidemics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.253.251 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism in lead[edit]

Hello. The criticism of the fifth edition is so strong that it belongs in the lead. If you can find reviews they are negative. So I have put a sentence in the lead to cite that. The main DSM article might be more positive, I don't know. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine but top priority is to list what is actually in DSM5.--Penbat (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, i.e., we should be consistent with WP:MOSINTRO ("Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.") I took out the sentences about specific criticisms, although I referenced the criticism section, which I hope others will agree is a fair balance. I should perhaps note that I am a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, and I personally have many gripes with the DSM, but I am striving to present relevant information in a balanced, neutral, encyclopedic manner. Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Penbat. I can order a copy today. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Woah! One source wants USD $121.99. Do you think the Medscape summary or some other can be used? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
There must be a reliable source somewhere that just lists the differences between DSM-IV & DSM5 - that would do for now. I guess that Medscape article Medscape summary should do fine.--Penbat (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a useful source.--Penbat (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I found this APA publication at the University of Illinois in readable form. It's "Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5". I hope to have a chance to get back to this tomorrow. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Well the APA fixed that file (so I don't have to link to the copy). -SusanLesch (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a note here that the UofI copy I used for most of yesterday was not good--only 13 pages. The real APA file has 19 pages. I am trying to redo the entire list as fast as possible but might not finish until Saturday. Then I will have a chance to answer Mark or anybody else about the lead. Sorry, but my effort backfired temporarily to do this without buying the book. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's Achieve a Consensus on the Lead section[edit]

At 05:44 UTC, 24 May 2013‎ I added a POV-lead cleanup message because I believe the lead section as it currently exists is not neutral. However, I do think we can quickly reach consensus on this issue.

(Edit: I removed what in retrospect was a misinterpretation of another editor's statement). {I realize I could have used <del> and <ins> markup here, but I tried it and it took up so much space and looked so cluttered, I removed it and used this option, which is mentioned at Talk page guidelines/Own comments.} Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

With regard to reaching consensus, I propose that we either:

a) Mention reliable sources that are more positive about DSM-5 alongside mention of the crititicism; or

b) Reference the criticism, including a link to the criticism section, as I suggested earlier but refrain from quoting or going into details about DSM-5 criticism in the lead section.

Some of the relevant guidance for this discussion includes:

From Manual of Style/Lead section - The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. ... the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

From Manual of Style/Lead section/Provide an accessible overview - The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead ... Consideration should be given to creating interest in the article. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

From Writing better articles/Lead section - The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs.

From Writing better articles/Lead section/The rest of the lead section - If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.

Thus, I don't see a problem with mentioning the criticisms of DSM-5 in the Lead section. However, I do have a problem with the presentation being lopsided. Contrary to popular opinion, not everything published about the DSM-5 is as negative as the current sentence in the Lead section ("The fifth edition has been criticized by the National Institute of Mental Health and Dr. Allen Frances, who cautioned physicians to "use the DSM-5 cautiously, if at all") would imply.

I am happy to add a sentence to balance the discussion out. It will have at least half a dozen references to reliable sources, i.e., Medscape, NY Times, PsychCentral (Dr. John Grohl), and professional psychiatry and clinical psychology journals.

Also, note that the statement, "The fifth edition has been criticized by the National Institute of Mental Health" needs a citation, and it should also include reference to the joint NIMH/APA statement by Dr. Insell and the President-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, which includes this sentence: "Today, the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), along with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) represents the best information currently available for clinical diagnosis of mental disorders. Patients, families, and insurers can be confident that effective treatments are available and that the DSM is the key resource for delivering the best available care."

Mark D Worthen PsyD 08:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with Looie496's version of the lead. Now back to the article. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The lead contains this text "a revised treatment and naming of gender identity disorder to Gender dysphoria" which is factually incorrect. GID pathologized identity or pathologized (de)personalization. In contrast Gender Dysphoria pathologizes anxiety. It's not a renaming, it is a obsoleting of one disease and creation of a quite different disease. 71.3.97.37 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)HenryHall

Subsection 3.4 National Institute of Mental Health[edit]

I rewrote Subsection 3.4 National Institute of Mental Health because it did not comport with WP:NPV (neutral point of view). For example, it did not include references to articles (e.g., blog posts, newspaper articles) that provide less critical views, and it did not reference some of Dr. Insel's clarifying statements regarding DSM-5, and, especially the joint NIMH/APA statement regarding this issue. I should note that I certainly do not fault the original author(s) on that last point, as the NIMH/APA joint statement was just issued today (23 May 2013). In fact, I really don't fault the original author(s) at all because reading the media and professional reactions to Dr. Insel's blog post, it would be easy to conclude that response to the publication of DSM-5 has been decidedly negative in general, and that Dr. Insel's comments represented a major blow to the Manual's legitimacy. My take is that DSM-5 is definitely receiving more criticism than past editions; many of those criticisms have merit; and that we are probably witnessing a paradigm shift in the way we classify mental disorders. However, I think it's important to not get caught up in the frenzied, often sensationalistic buzz about the new DSM, and instead err on the side of "Just the facts Ma'am." Mark D Worthen PsyD 07:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of anything that adds sources to this section, which was completely unsourced. So thank you. I have restored mention of specific criticism to the lead, as well as a very good third party source. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Tags[edit]

I'm going to do some work on the lead, mainly adding uncontroversial information, and in the process I'm going to remove the neutrality tag for now. This article is going to be under very active development for a while, and tags like that will just get in the way. Neutrality issues should be discussed here on the talk page. If they still exist in a couple of weeks, we can give some thought to whether tags are appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Followup: I just saved a rewrite of the lead. I added a bunch of information to give an overview of the history, changes, and their significance. I also removed the tag (as explained above), and removed the refs, following the principle that citations should be minimized in the lead of an article for the sake of readibility (all info in the lead should be explicated in the body, and that's where the citations should mainly go). I will hold off on further changes for the moment, to give other editors a chance to react. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with you removing the neutrality tag. Your rationale is logical and reasonable. Plus, I'm still a relative newbie as an editor, so I'm trying to err on the side of deferring to more experienced editors like yourself. Not that I always act in accordance with that objective....
I really like what you wrote for the lead, especially the pithy opening paragraph. It's a great example of what the Manual of Style describes as an ideal lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. ... the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." --Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Looie496, I also very much like your lead. Do you think the new disorders for gambling and tobacco belong there? (I do.) -SusanLesch (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe not. DSM-IV had nicotine dependence. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I have dsm5 preordered and it should arrive between May 31 and June 3. Farrajak (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
That's great. If you or anybody has time to correct the list it would help. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Personality disorders[edit]

Hi Farrajak. If you have a copy of this book, please cite it fully. I am working from the APA May 17 "Highlights" file. There, personality disorders are under "Neurocognitive disorders" and are not a separate chapter. Because chapters hold significance in this DSM, may I ask that you please tell us, which is it? Thanks in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the citation. Because you are looking at the proposed change file I moved personality up to neurocognitive (based on the May 17 file). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Help needed with Disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders[edit]

Hello. This bullet begins with "...became other specified and unspecified disruptive disorder, impulse-control disorder, and conduct disorders" but that's not what the APA says. Their full sentence follows: "The chapter on disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders is new to DSM-5. It brings together disorders that were previously included in the chapter “Disorders Usually First Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence” (i.e., oppositional defiant disorder; conduct disorder; and disruptive behavior disorder not otherwise specified, now categorized as other specified and unspecified disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders) and the chapter “Impulse-Control Disorders Not Otherwise Specified” (i.e., intermittent explosive disorder, pyromania, and kleptomania)."

My question is, is my rewording accurate? What does APA mean after "now categorized as..."? Do they mean three (and only three) disorders, or are they describing three groups? I think we need an expert or someone with the actual book to say for sure. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

DSM-5 codes[edit]

Somebody needs to do DSM-5 codes at some point like DSM-IV codes.--Penbat (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this would be much appreciated! I don't have the book, or else I would do it. --69.251.247.123 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability of criticisms[edit]

While there have been criticisms notable on their own, others included lack secondary sources which would probabably indicate that they were not really notable. We should not include every critique ever made, but probably only those that had some influence once published (which would be indicated by the existance of secondary sources commenting on them). In this sense the Borderline personality section is based solely in self-published sorces, whereas the "more radical treatments" is based in primary research articles. --Garrondo (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "[w]e should not include every critique ever made, but probably only those that had some influence once published...." A section that contains only self-published sources definitely needs work--either finding at least a couple of peer-reviewed journal articles or similar; paring it down or integrating it somewhere else; or eliminating it. Mark D Worthen PsyD 18:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Interpolated comment concerning removal of axes[edit]

I am copying here a comment that was inserted into the article by 68.44.169.212 (talk · contribs): "(Please note the DSM-5 got rid of the multiaxial system. All diagnoses from the DSM-IV-TR's Axis I, II and III are now listed together, with separate notations for important psychosocial and contextual factors [formerly Axis IV] and disability [formerly Axis V]. The DSM-5 now utilizes a nonaxial system.)" I have no idea whether the statement is correct, but I didn't want to simply remove it, even though it clearly doesn't belong in the article text in that form. Looie496 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It's basically correct and I've tried to add a statement to that effect under "Section I in DSM-5". Thanks! Farrajak (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

comment about gender disphoria and specifiers[edit]

(move from article)

  • Persons with intersex conditions were excluded from these diagnoses as of DSM-IV, but not in DSM-5. This inclusion has been condemned because term Disorder of Sexual Development for non-pathological intersex conditions is seen as needlessly stigmatizing and because cross-sex identification is meaningless in intersex people. [1] [2]
  1. ^ "Open letter from British Psychological Society". British Psychological Society. November, 2011. Retrieved 8 April 2012.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Leave Intersex Out of the DSM-V". The Hastings Center. June, 2011. Retrieved 8 April 2012.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

Some of this has been address in "Highlights of changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 " (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Retrieved on June 8, 2013 Farrajak (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet User:Farrajak[edit]

User:Farrajak has just been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Star767 see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Star767/Archive. I have in many cases been wiping the slate clean by deleting his contributions to other articles but here he seems to have been reasonably constructive so i will leave them in place. But please treat them all with a pinch of salt.--Penbat (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually then a sockpuppet of user:Mattisse, an extremely competent editor indef'ed because of an inability to work together with others constructively. Looie496 (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
No. I am personally convinced that Star767 is not Mattisse. That idea was made by 1 of the many contributors to the Star767 ANI and was picked up with little analysis when the ANI was closed. I personally once interacted with Mattisse and found her courteous and constructive - nothing like Farrajak or Star767. I personally believe Star767 is Zeraeph, see User_talk:Star767#Blocked.--Penbat (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Headings incorrect[edit]

Under the "Schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders in DSM-5" heading is:

  • Bipolar disorders
  • Depressive disorders
  • Anxiety disorders
  • Obsessive compulsive disorders
  • Trauma disorders

These should be under another top-level heading. None of these are necessarily psychotic disorders and should not be classified as such. --69.251.247.123 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done a major reorganization of the article, moving a lot of the material into a subarticle, and fixed the above-mentioned problem in the process. Thanks for pointing it out. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Large body of material moved to subarticle[edit]

I have transferred a large portion of the article content to a newly-created article called DSM-5 codes, to match our existing article on DSM-IV codes. Almost all of it was content written by Farrajak, I think. Looie496 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

link[edit]

hi, found this for ordinary persons like me: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21578024-american-psychiatric-associations-latest-diagnostic-manual-remains-flawed 85.22.116.213 (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

When will the DSM finally proclaim Deity as the delusional disorder that is actually is ???[edit]

Let's face it, we have computers now and if you google the Bible or the Kuran for inconsistencies you'll find so many if you hit print you may run out of ink or paper. Yes, I'm an Atheist and we have sayings like, "Embrace reality." and "Rocks don't Lie." Humanity made Socrates drink hemlock and Galeleo denounce the Planets. Religion made sex a sin thus causing so much social guilt and mental health related issues related to the most beautiful thing people can do together. When will the APA call an end to this insanity ? Not to mention the wars caused by religion and profiteering by coroprate America and other Countries greed at the expense of our brave soldiers dying, being maimed and suffering PTSD all over the Planet. When will the APA finally be brave enough to take a stand for reality. Google Atheist and you will find the most decent, caring philosophically correct people ever to walk the Earth who care about our Planet, it's people and good causes. Atheists protest injustice while deist pray for help that will never come, their votes preyed upon by politicians using the god concept to get their votes. The APA can rescue us if they ever chose to do the right thing and present reality. I mean isn't that a Psychiatrist duty ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secularrealist (talkcontribs) 09:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? Mark D Worthen PsyD 03:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. Galileo, Quran, corporate.

Personality disorder not otherwise specified, Depressive personality disorder & Passive-aggressive personality disorder missing in DSM V[edit]

In DSM-IV Depressive personality disorder and Passive-aggressive personality disorder were both in Appendix B - see Template:DSM personality disorders. I'm confused about whether they are in DSM5 or if they have been quietly dropped. Do you know ? Im also confused whether Personality disorder not otherwise specified still exists.--Penbat (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I will look into this tomorrow, but as far as I know without checking sources, PD-NOS is gone. Lova Falk talk 19:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I think PD-NOS was quite widely diagnosed where there was a lot of comorbidity and also used as a convenient substitute for the 4 sidelined PDs Personality_disorder_not_otherwise_specified#Diagnostic_criteria_.28DSM-IV-TR_.3D_301.9.29. --Penbat (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
In my very personal opinion PD-NOS was given when clinicians thought "something is wrong with this person, but I don't know what." Goodnight! (checking out) Lova Falk talk 20:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Next morning. I'm sorry, I cannot find answers to your questions. I'm no longer so sure that PD-NOS has been dropped. I have been looking for sources for an hour now but I just cannot find any. Frustrating not to have access to DSM-5! Lova Falk talk 08:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Strange isnt it, it certanly isnt listed as a DSM V change & I believe around 20% of PD diagnoses were PD-NOS, more than any other PD - it would be awkward to ditch. I was thinking that Depressive personality disorder and Passive-aggressive personality disorder might be hidden away in "Section III: emerging measures and models - Alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders" or "Conditions for further study"--Penbat (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Not listed here DSM-5_codes#Personality_disorders_in_DSM-5.--Penbat (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I have been following your discussion, you might like to have a look at Introduction to the Personality Disorders and scan down to the bottom of the article. dolfrog (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
"......will be represented and diagnosed by a combination of core impairment in personality functioning and specific pathological personality traits, rather than as a specific type." Thanks that's helpful but still not crystal clear. That info was published in 2010 and there is nothing included that anybody has found listed in the long list of DSM5 changes given in 2013 or details of what it has actually been replaced by in 2013. Would be interesting to know what has happened to the other non-PD "not otherwise specified" conditions.--Penbat (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "Not Otherwise Specified" (NOS) is no longer used for any mental disorder diagnosis. Instead, clinicians can use either Other Specified Personality Disorder (301.89) or Unspecified Personality Disorder (301.9). IMHO, the names have changed, but the suspect is the same. One problem is that many (most?) patients present with a mixture of personality traits, i.e., their symptoms do not fit neatly into one of the PDs - "mixed personality disorder" is one term used for this situation. In those instances, clinicians diagnose PD, NOS (DMS-IV) or Other Specified Personality Disorder (DSM-5), and then list the personality traits they believe the patient displays. Mark D Worthen PsyD 16:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I've lost the will to live though.--Penbat (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Query re DTD[edit]

This article should explain what happened to Developmental Trauma Disorder, which was not included in the DSM-5 nor was it mentioned in the DSM-IV when it was called DESNOS.--205.167.120.201 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The other term commonly used is Complex PTSD. Remember you can add the information. See the Plain and Simple Guide for an introduction re: how to add content to a Wikipedia article. Mark D Worthen PsyD 16:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Complex PTSD is another word for Borderline Personality Disorder, and DTD apparently is too.


A woman with "developmental trauma disorder" is with her toddler son. This is their interaction:

"At one point the child fell and hit his head, and lifted his arms to the woman for help. She responded, '"Don't you hit me!"' Lieberman recalls. The team's job was to help the woman understand where her reaction was coming from, and to learn more appropriate ways of responding to and caring for her child, Lieberman explains."

Source: http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar07/diagnosis.aspx 173.162.252.241 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not accurate. Some people with Complex PTSD (also known as DTD or DESNOS) also meet diagnostic criteria for BPD, but not all. And some patients with BPD would not be described as having Complex PTSD. Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder controversy[edit]

Under "Borderline personality disorder controversy," the outcome of the controversy is not included. What is the outcome? (DSM-5 was published in May 2013, so there is an outcome.) 173.162.252.241 (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I added information regarding the outcome. Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Chair of the DSM-5[edit]

Just a heads up that although this article states that David Kupfer's industry links were disclosed along with the task force, it appears he didn't disclose that he had shares in a start-up company that planned to sell psych tests that might have been commercially boosted by changes to the DSM that he had been pushing for. APA has released a statement claiming that although this Conflict of Interest should have been disclosed he definitely did not influence anything. Sighola2 (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I read the report.[chair 1] Here's the conclusion:

Dr. Kupfer should have disclosed to APA his interest in PAI in 2012. Dr. Kupfer’s interest in PAI, which came after the decision had been made to include dimensional measures in DSM-5, did not influence DSM-5’s inclusion of dimensional measures for further study in Section 3. Interest in inclusion of these measures in DSM-5 began with conferences starting in 2003. If and when PAI develops a commercial product with CAT, it will not have any greater advantage than the dozens of dimensional measures currently being marketed by others.

I don't think it needs to be in the article but if others think a sentence or two about the findings contained in this report are important, I would not object. Mark D Worthen PsyD 13:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Edited by Mathglot (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC) to keep reflist local
  1. ^ "January 14, 2014 Letter to Assembly" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association. Retrieved 10 February 2014. 


British Psychological Society response[edit]

The name of the section "British Psychological Society Response" in this article would imply that it is a response to the release of the DSM-5. Yet, the response seems to be from 2011. How could there be a 2011 response to a 2013 publication? Perhaps the relationship between the information presented and the DSM-5 needs to be made more clear in this section. Mark Froelich (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I sought to address this valid point in a recent edit (diff). - Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The missing manual: Making the DSM-5: Concepts and Controversies[edit]

Surprising that Making the DSM-5: Concepts and Controversies[note 1] isn't among the article references yet. This is your go-to source for anything about the philosophy behind the development of DSM-5 and the controversies surrounding it.

Notes

  1. ^ Paris, Joel; Phillips, James (May 17, 2013). Making the DSM-5: Concepts and Controversies (electronic bk). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6504-1. ISBN 9781461465041. LCCN 2013932650. Retrieved 2014-12-22. 

Mathglot (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Integrating DSM-5 Critiques into the Body of the article[edit]

The Missing Manual, in Chapter 18, Better articles: A systematic approach, persuasively argues for integrating criticism into the body of an article:

When citing controversy or criticism, integrate it into the article. Suppose a politician had a major role in getting a particular controversial policy implemented. If you describe that policy in one section of the article ("Accomplishments") and put criticisms of the policy together with other criticisms of that politician in a separate section, you harm the narrative of the article. It's easy to throw all the negative stuff into one section of an article, or even spin it off as a separate article ... but it's a disservice to the reader.

I suggest that we gradually integrate DSM-5 criticism, currently in a separate section, into the body of the article. - Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Markworthen, while I'm okay with such integration in various cases, I think that a separate criticism section is better in this case, given the substantial criticism this manual has gotten, and given the way that the article is currently set up. I don't think we should make editors dig for the criticism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn - I assume you mean, "I don't think we should make readers dig for the criticism." That is a fair point, particularly if someone is specifically looking for critiques of the Manual. Perhaps a separate DSM Criticisms article would be best in the long run. There are certainly many, many criticisms from reliable sources. - Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Markworthen, yeah, that's what I meant; sorry for the typo. I also see that you signed your initial post after I tagged it as unsigned; I'm noting this so that editors aren't confused by the time stamps. I wouldn't mind a spinout article for the material, but do see WP:Spinout and WP:No split if you aren't already familiar with those guidelines. On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this section since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. If you'd rather I not ping you here, I'll refrain from doing that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind being pinged - I'd rather know sooner than later (I don't always remember to check my Watchlist). Yes, I did read WP:Spinout and WP:No split, but maybe a DSM Criticisms article might merit an exception. Although I acknowledge a bias: I have to use DSM-5 in my work, so its deficiencies and biases smack me in the face daily. ;^] - Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

More radical criticisms[edit]

I removed the More radical criticisms section, for the reasons given (diff). However, I do not mean to imply that the point the editor was trying to make isn't a valid one. In fact, one might want to integrate some of the content of that section into the body of the article. If so, I recommend a sentence or two explaining references to Kuhnian scientific revolution so that the average reader will grasp the basic idea, without necessarily having to read the Kuhnian article. 06:23, 5 November 2015 — Mark D Worthen PsyD 16:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


elimination disorders[edit]

my textbook has catagory 11 listed as elimination disorders and this is not shown on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.14.120 (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point. The list of disorders represents only those disorders that changed in some significant manner between DSM-IV and DSM-5. Since the Elimination Disorders did not undergo substantial changes (see: Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5), they are not listed. However, it is probably not immediately clear to many readers that the list of disorders represents changed/updated disorders only. Therefore, I added some explanatory text to the beginning of DSM-5#Changes. Thank you for your suggestion. :O) - Mark D Worthen PsyD 23:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Discard Section: "Changes"[edit]

This whole article, like so many others at Wikipedia these days, seems to have lost perspective. The object of an article is to inform a general reader--as I understand it, someone with perhaps a high school or early university education. Such a reader would likely to be interested in the origins (history) of the DSM concept, and the current struggle to define and particular to measure psychological symptoms.

The section on changes is a horrendous level of technical detail that simply buries whatever general knowledge is provided and in my view is completely out of place here. Specialists who are interested in the changes can surely find much better references elsewhere.

--50.68.134.51 (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on DSM-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DSM-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DSM-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Living Document?[edit]

The article currently contains the phrase, "In addition, the DSM-5 is the first 'living document' version of a DSM." No wikilinks to explain what this means, and the external reference provided is to an abstract that never mentions the term. Normally, I'd delete this, but it seems to be pretty important, and I'd like someone more knowledgeable to add some type of clarification to the article. Unschool 23:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikilinked living document. --Hordaland (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DSM-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)