Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 5, pp 861–862 | Cite as

A Brief History of Field Trials of the DSM Diagnostic Criteria for Paraphilias

  • Ray BlanchardEmail author
Letter to the Editor

A great deal of lively criticism, much of it published in the pages of this journal, has been directed at the various proposals of the DSM-5 subworkgroup charged with revising the diagnostic criteria for the paraphilic disorders.1 Some of these critiques have argued, implicitly or explicitly, that the proposed criteria would represent a disimprovement over the current ones (e.g., First, 2010). The casual reader would suppose that such comparisons must be based on a solid foundation of knowledge about the performance of the current criteria. It is therefore instructive to review one of the most important sources of information about the reliability and validity of DSM diagnoses—the field trials conducted as “[a]n important step” (American Psychiatric Association, 1980, p. 467) in each major revision. The purpose of the DSM field trials has been summarized by Kraemer, Kupfer, Narrow, Clarke, and Regier (2010) in lay terms: “A field trial is an evaluation of a product in the context in...

Keywords

Field Trial American Psychiatric Association Sexual Interest Child Molestation Fetishism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Blanchard, R. (2009). Reply to letters regarding Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and the DSM-V [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 331–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchard, R. (2010a). The DSM diagnostic criteria for Transvestic Fetishism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 363–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchard, R. (2010b). The fertility of hebephiles and the adaptationist argument against including hebephilia in DSM-5 [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 817–818.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchard, R. (2010c). The specificity of victim count as a diagnostic indicator of pedohebephilia [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1245–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchard, R., Kolla, N. J., Cantor, J. M., Klassen, P. E., Dickey, R., Kuban, M. E., & Blak, T. (2007). IQ, handedness, and pedophilia in adult male patients stratified by referral source. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanchard, R., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Cantor, J. M., Klassen, P. E., & Dickey, R. (2009). Absolute versus relative ascertainment of pedophilia in men. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanchard, R., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Klassen, P. E., Dickey R., & Cantor, J. M. (2010). Sexual attraction to others: A comparison of two models of alloerotic responding in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3.
  10. Blanchard, R., Lykins, A. D., Wherrett, D., Kuban, M. E., Cantor, J. M., Blak, T., … Klassen, P. E. (2009). Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM-V. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 335–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. First, M. B. (2010). DSM-5 proposals for paraphilias: Suggestions for reducing false positives related to use of behavioral manifestations [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1239–1244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kraemer, H. C., Kupfer, D. J., Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., & Regier, D. A. (2010). Moving toward DSM-5: The field trials. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 1158–1160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levenson, J. S. (2004). Reliability of sexually violent predator civil commitment criteria in Florida. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 357–368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. O’Donohue, W., Regev, L. G., & Hagstrom, A. (2000). Problems with the DSM-IV diagnosis of pedophilia. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seto, M. C., Cantor, J. M., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 610–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law and Mental Health ProgramCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations