Abstract
Psychologists who work in the civil forensic context are tasked with providing legal decision makers with sufficient valid and reliable data to aid them in deciding the penultimate question of whether the claimant has a psychological injury and whether that injury was the direct result of an event that preceded the injury. In May 2013, amidst a barrage of criticism from mental health professionals, the American Psychiatric Association released the long awaited fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), oft referred to in legal and non-psychiatric contexts as the gold standard or bible of psychiatric disorders. Previous editions of the DSM have traditionally acknowledged the inadequacy of fit between the DSM and forensic environments. In its most current iteration, DSM-5 framers underscore the DSM’s utility in clinical and research settings, while also highlighting the level of forensic review that occurred in the vetting of DSM-5. Notwithstanding, (a) the vetting among forensic professionals and (b) the framers contention that the diagnostic categories are “concise and explicit,” the DSM-5 diagnostic categories, while perhaps fitting for the educational, clinical, and research contexts, just as its predecessors, are likely to lead to unexpected consequences in forensic contexts. Thus, it is incumbent upon psychologists serving as experts in civil forensic contexts to ensure that their findings are supported by data that are sufficiently reliable and based on sound methodology.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, text revision. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19.
Frances, A. (2010). The forensic risks of DSM-V and how to avoid them. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 38, 11–14.
Frances, A. (2012). DSM 5 in distress: DSM 5 is guide not Bible—Ignore its ten worst changes [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201212/dsm-5-is-guide-not-bible-ignore-its-ten-worst-changes
Frances, A. (2013a). Does DSM 5 have a captive audience [Web log post]? Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/does-dsm-5-have-a-captive_b_3080553.html
Frances, A. (2013b). DSM-5 writing mistakes will cause great confusion [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/dsm5-writing-mistakes-wil_b_3419747.html
Gaughwin, P. (2008). Psychiatry’s problem child: PTSD in the forensic context (part 1). Australasian Psychiatry, 16, 104–107. doi:10.1080/10398560701636914
Greenberg, S., Shuman, D., & Meyer, R. (2004). Unmasking forensic diagnosis. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.01.001
Hass, D. (2013). Could the American Psychiatric Association cause you headaches? The dangerous interaction between the DSM-5 and employment law. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 44, 683–716.
Kane, A. (2006). Psychology, causality and the courts. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Psychological knowledge in court: PTSD, pain, and TBI (pp. 13–51). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Minnesota Statutes, MN Stat. §176.011 (2013). Retrieved from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=176.011&format=pdf
Saunders, J. L. (2011). A distinct language and a historic pendulum: The evolution of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 25, 394–403.
Schofield, W. (1987). Beyond the purchase of friendship. Society, 2, 69–75. doi:10.1007/BF02695526
Shuman, D., & Hardy, J. L. (2007). Causation, psychology and law. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Causality of psychological injury: Presenting evidence in court (pp. 517–548). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Slovenko, R. (2011). The DSM in litigation and legislation. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39(1), 6–11.
Stein, D. J., Phillips, K. A., Bolton, D., Fulford, K. W. M., Zadler, J., & Kendler, K. (2010). What is a mental/psychiatric disorder? From DSM-IV to DSM–V. Psychological Medicine, 40, 1759–1766. doi:10.1017/S0033291709992261
Young, G., & Kane, A. (2007). Causality in psychology and law. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Causality of psychological injury: Presenting evidence in court (pp. 13–48). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Young, G., & Yehuda, R. (2006). Understanding PTSD: implications for the court. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Psychological knowledge in court: PTSD, pain, and TBI (pp. 55–69). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Acknowledgments
Lori C. Thomas, J.D., Ph.D. has clinical practice in Devon, Pennsylvania. Dr. Thomas also has part-time adjunct positions in Temple University’s Department of Psychology and in University of Delaware’s Associates of Arts Program, Wilmington Campus.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thomas, L.C. The DSM-5 and Forensic Relationship Status: It’s Complicated. Psychol. Inj. and Law 6, 324–329 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-013-9179-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-013-9179-2