![]() Volumes 1-3 present the literature reviews conducted by the 13 work groups. The DSM-IV Sourcebook is a four volume set of papers which are authored by participants in the development processes leading to the publication of DSM-IV and which are supposed to provide a detailed presentation of the empirical evidence and associated rationales for the many decisions involved in the production of DSM-IV. ![]() The combination of these ideals and the impressively long list of distinguished consultants contributes substantially to the prima facie scientific legitimacy of the development process. The apparently overriding and frequently rehearsed charges to the groups were to pursue their deliberations in an open-minded fashion, to base their deliberations and proposed changes as much as possible on the “best data available,” to maximize congruence with the ICD-10 as much as possible (in order to establish international consistency regarding psychiatric diagnostic practices), and to take a relatively conservative approach to revision (in order to preserve stability of criteria across editions of the DSM), and, hence, to propose changes only when there was a solid basis for doing so. In addition, they worked in concert with a large number of advisors, each of whom was invited to participate in the process because of their possession of relevant expertise regarding particular mental disorders or types of issues. The work groups were also provided with general guidelines regarding how they were to proceed with, and report upon, their various tasks. The work groups were charged with identifying issues and possible options for resolution concerning their assigned disorders, developing an empirical basis for deciding among the options, and making recommendations regarding each of the issues. Many members of the Task Force also functioned as chairs or co-chairs of the 13 work groups, each responsible for the study of a specific set of mental disorders. The Task Force, appointed by the Board, was composed of 27 individuals responsible for oversight of the development process and for making final recommendations to the Board. ![]() Final decisional authority for revision of DSM-III-R rested with the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association, although the final decisions were informed by the APA membership and by recommendations of the Task Force assigned the job of proposing and attempting to resolve issues concerning: the addition or deletion of diagnostic categories and sub-categories, the development or modification of diagnostic criteria associated with existing or new categories, the development or modification of text associated with existing or new categories, and any other issues associated with the production of the DSM-IV manual. ![]() As we shall see below, this image of the DSM is somewhat overstated.īuilding upon the system presented in DSM-III-R, the process by which decisions were made regarding production of DSM-IV was a complex hierarchical process that proceeded roughly as follows. As a consequence of this scientific research framework and the decision making processes informed by it, the DSM is now presented by its developers as a system of classification which rests upon an empirical basis and whose development is appropriately and rigorously responsive to evolving science. These same processes are now in place for the production of DSM-V, expected to be published sometime in the middle of the current decade. The system is alleged to be grounded on a massive scientific research effort which has informed, and continues to inform, the processes of development which led to DSM-III (1980) and to its successors, DSM-III-R (1986) and DSM-IV (1994). The deep cultural entrenchment of the DSM system of classification is based to a significant extent upon its claim to scientific credibility, a claim which has been repeatedly made and nurtured by its developers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |