4 ms·
The hard science went into developing the DSM-5, which is used for diagnosis. We don't need to conduct a study every single time a phychiatrist is presented wit
by andkenneth 8y ago
The hard science went into developing the DSM-5, which is used for diagnosis. We don't need to conduct a study every single time a phychiatrist is presented with a kid who might have ADHD. Yes, the DSM is a checklist but it's a checklist for pretty much every single mental disorder that exists, by definition.
- zumu 8y agoThe DSM has been criticized specifically for causing inconsistent and over diagnosis of ADHD and other mental disorders. It should also be noted the DSM is primarily an American text and used far far less internationally. Appealing to the DSM-5 isn't conclusive by any means.
- WhompingWindows 8y agoTo say that it's been criticized doesn't mean anything, because there are skeptics who criticize ADHD diagnoses with zero understanding of the literature. If you actually read the experts on the subject, for instance my advisor Dr. Weyandt who wrote a very in-depth book overviewing the literature on ADHD, you'll see that over-diagnosis is not a commonly held view amongst actual experts. But, like climate change skepticism, many people think they can make a claim about over-diagnosis with zero expertise.
- zumu 8y agoTo be clear I am not arguing about ADHD. The previous poster expressed skepticism of the DSM-5 as a diagnostic tool. You responded the DSM 5 was developed with hard science, and that it is sufficient for diagnosis. I'm saying criticisms of the DSM-5's diagnostic strength is valid and not a fringe position. Part of the reason it is updated periodically is to improve upon its capabilities as a diagnostic tool. The belief the DSM has weaknesses is not equivalent to climate change denial.