Abstract
The special issue on the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, American Psychiatric Association, 2013) in the journal Psychological Injury and Law has considered its changes relative to the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision, American Psychiatric Association, 2000) from both a clinical utility and scientific point of view. Although the manual did not undergo wholesale change, the changes to diagnostic categories relevant to the area of psychological injuries (especially posttraumatic stress disorder, mild traumatic brain injury, and chronic pain) present both practical and forensic conundrums, complicating clinical and legal work in the area. The articles in the special issue number nine (including the present one), and involve ones on the major psychological injuries, as well as personality. Separate articles deal with forensics and ethics, with a final one considering forensic psychiatric work using the DSMs. The authors collectively indicate that the DSM-5 is rife with utility and scientific difficulties, although it still might be used in practice and for court in the context of careful, comprehensive assessments and critical analysis. More importantly, ongoing and future research should be considered in revising the DSM-5. Some of the articles review in depth the extant research on their topics and all make recommendations that are useful. The articles include those (in order in the special issue) by: Zoellner et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); Biehn et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); Schultz (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); Young (2013); Hopwood and Sellbom (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); Thomas (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); Gordon and Cosgrove (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013); and an opinion piece by Frances and Halon (Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 2013), the chief chair of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, American Psychiatric Association 1994).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed., text rev.). Washington: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-V (5th ed.). Washington: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
Biehn, T. L., Elhai, J. D., Seligman, L. D., Tamburrino, M., Armour, C., & Forbes, D. (2013). Underlying dimensions of DSM-5 posttraumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder symptoms. Psychological Injury and Law, 6. doi:10.1007/s12207-013-9177-4
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
Frances, A. (2013a). Essentials of psychiatric diagnosis: responding to the challenge of DSM-5. New York: Guilford Press.
Frances, A. (2013b). DSM in philosophy land: curiouser and curiouser. In J. Paris & J. Phillips (Eds.), Making the DSM-5: concepts and controversies (pp. 95–103). New York: Springer.
Frances, A., & Halon, R. (2013). The uses and misuses of the DSM in forensic settings. Psychological Injury and Law, 6. doi:10.1007/s12207-013-9180-9
General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
Gordon, R. M., & Cosgrove, L. (2013). Ethical considerations in the development and application of mental and behavioral nosologies: lessons from DSM-5. Psychological Injury and Law, 6. doi:10.1007/s12207-013-9172-9
Hopwood, C. J., & Sellbom, M. (2013). Implications of DSM-5 personality traits for forensic psychology. Psychological Injury and Law, 6. doi:10.1007/s12207-013-9176-5
Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Schultz, I. Z. (2013). DSM-5 neurocognitive disorder: validity, reliability, fairness and utility in forensic applications. Psychological Injury and Law, 6. doi:10.1007/s12207-013-9174-7
The Committee on the Judiciary. (2011). Federal rules of evidence. Retrieved from http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/112th/evidence2011.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2013.
Thomas, L. C. (2013). The DSM-5 and forensic relationship status: it’s complicated. Psychological Injury and Law, 6. doi:10.1007/s12207-013-9179-2
Young, G. (2013). Treatment of pain in the DSM-5. Psychological Injury and Law, 6. doi:10.1007/s12207-013-9178-3
Young, G., & Haynes, S. (2014). Embodied causation: unification of causality and etiology in psychology and psychopathology. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
Zoellner, L. A., Bedard-Gilligan, M. A., Jun, J. J., Marks, L. H., & Garcia, N. M. (2013). The evolving construct of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): DSM-5 criteria changes and legal implication. Psychological Injury and Law, 6. doi:10.1007/s12207-013-9175-6
Conflict of Interest
Note that I have no conflicts of interest to report. I do assess plaintiff complainants typically.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Young, G. Breaking Bad: DSM-5 Description, Criticisms, and Recommendations. Psychol. Inj. and Law 6, 345–348 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-013-9181-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-013-9181-8