The DSM-5 proposed revisions

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
thanks for posting this!! i think its really interesting the way that they have broken down the PD's and incorporated the use of a scale. it definitely seems to take into account more so the fact that these traits occur on a continuum. the trait domains are also very interesting.. i think this is a much more comprehensive way of looking at PDs versus what is currently outlined in the DSM IV TR.
 
I actually support rolling aspergers back into autism. The distinction between aspergers and high functioning autism is much more fuzzy then many people realize.
 
lamorena said:
thanks for posting this!! i think its really interesting the way that they have broken down the PD's and incorporated the use of a scale. it definitely seems to take into account more so the fact that these traits occur on a continuum. the trait domains are also very interesting.. i think this is a much more comprehensive way of looking at PDs versus what is currently outlined in the DSM IV TR.
Click to expand...

PD's, you mean the personality disorders? I went straight to those because they are among my areas of interest. At first I was excited by the more detailed criteria and severity level rating, but then noticed (unless I'm reading it wrong) it seems they removed a lot. Like, Paranoid and Histrionic for example. Are those just lumped into the 5 remaining now? Not sure about that:eyebrow: The other aspects are nice though, such as the severity rating and the different traits that may or may not be emphasized etc. But am I the only one bothered by the removal of some of the disorders there? Have they decided some aren't really 'existent' as a chronically disordered behavior pattern? Something like the paranoid personality disorder made sense on its own...although they were lumped in categories before, and a lot share traits (lack of empathy, only set on own goals)... they still had distinctions. Can't think of which that paranoid could just be meshed with now unless again like I said, someone just decreed that that maladaptive personality pattern doesn't really exist. Not sure... *edit* Okay reading the Avoidant section, maybe paranoid could be covered by that. Who knows, interesting though. Would also be interesting to know the rationale behind the changes.
 
Last edited:
Aura5 said:
PD's, you mean the personality disorders? I went straight to those because they are among my areas of interest. At first I was excited by the more detailed criteria and severity level rating, but then noticed (unless I'm reading it wrong) it seems they removed a lot. Like, Paranoid and Histrionic for example. Are those just lumped into the 5 remaining now? Not sure about that:eyebrow: The other aspects are nice though, such as the severity rating and the different traits that may or may not be emphasized etc. But am I the only one bothered by the removal of some of the disorders there? Have they decided some aren't really 'existent' as a chronically disordered behavior pattern? Something like the paranoid personality disorder made sense on its own...although they were lumped in categories before, and a lot share traits (lack of empathy, only set on own goals)... they still had distinctions. Can't think of which that paranoid could just be meshed with now unless again like I said, someone just decreed that that maladaptive personality pattern doesn't really exist. Not sure...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not liking their revision of the PD section. Each personality disorder is distinct enough to continue to merit its own place in the DSM. I cannot believe that they are considering eliminating NPD. It is very helpful to be able to read the diagnostic features, associated features, and diagnostic criteria of NPD.

I'm not exactly sure why they cannot just blend some of this. Yes, the severity level rating for PDs would be a great addition. I just don't know why they feel the need to eliminate diagnoses and the diagnostic features information that allowed us to diagnose disorder such as NPD.
 
happyinpsych said:
Yeah, I'm not liking their revision of the PD section. Each personality disorder is distinct enough to continue to merit its own place in the DSM. I cannot believe that they are considering eliminating NPD. It is very helpful to be able to read the diagnostic features, associated features, and diagnostic criteria of NPD.

I'm not exactly sure why they cannot just blend some of this. Yes, the severity level rating for PDs would be a great addition. I just don't know why they feel the need to eliminate diagnoses and the diagnostic features information that allowed us to diagnose disorder such as NPD.
Click to expand...


Right. For some reason the paranoid personality disorder is the one that jumped out first that I missed. And I was about to say, maybe they could have lumped histrionic and narcissistic...but not really. Histrionic was more about creating drama and spotlight, narcissistic just have this chronic sense of self-inflation. So the point is...no, they aren't the same, there are distinctions. Antisocial might have some narcissism, but NPD doesn't have ALL the APD etc...So again. Wonder what the rationale is. And schizoid, too...c'mon!
 
ooooh somehow i overlooked the fact that they are considering only having 5 major PD's now. im with you aura, im not sure what the rationale is for losing some of those pd's. maybe i should go back and re-read it. but i still like the new way of classifying the traits and the scale. i think that is a HUGE improvement. PD's aren't black and white.
 
lamorena said:
ooooh somehow i overlooked the fact that they are considering only having 5 major PD's now. im with you aura, im not sure what the rationale is for losing some of those pd's. maybe i should go back and re-read it. but i still like the new way of classifying the traits and the scale. i think that is a HUGE improvement. PD's aren't black and white.
Click to expand...

No, they're not black and white, but they are not so indistinct as to allow for them to be lumped into "prominent personality traits."

For instance, NPD would no longer be NPD. It would be lumped under the prominent personality traits: narcissm, manipulativeness, histrionism, and callousness.

Within this grouping, we would then rate a client according to "6 broad, higher order personality trait domains": negative emotionality, introversion, antagonism, disinhibition, compulsivity, and schizotypy.

WHAT??? I would not necessarily have used many of those broad trait domains to define NPD. They've left out other really important trait domains.

And, it scares me that they want to eliminate a PD that creates such havoc for people in relationships with these individuals. And, by eliminating, it is almost implying that this disorder isn't serious enough to include.

I'm just using NPD as an example. I haven't even begun to look at the other PDs yet or any of the other categories.

I do like their new severity ratings. But, do we have to throw out the baby with the bath water? Can't we have the new ratings and still maintain the diagnostic criteria and the diagnostic features.

Parts of this new DSM are almost unrecognizable to me.
 
Right, I don't see the point of the DSM if it isn't categorical.
 
Research supports dimensionality over categorization in many clusters of disorders. I'm not saying it should all be dimensional, but it's worth recognizing this set of research. Look into the field of taxometrics if you're interested in this idea.
 
There are problems with the dimensional model as well though. We were just discussing this in my Assessment class.
 
happyinpsych said:
No, they're not black and white, but they are not so indistinct as to allow for them to be lumped into "prominent personality traits."

For instance, NPD would no longer be NPD. It would be lumped under the prominent personality traits: narcissm, manipulativeness, histrionism, and callousness.

Within this grouping, we would then rate a client according to "6 broad, higher order personality trait domains": negative emotionality, introversion, antagonism, disinhibition, compulsivity, and schizotypy.

WHAT??? I would not necessarily have used many of those broad trait domains to define NPD. They've left out other really important trait domains.

And, it scares me that they want to eliminate a PD that creates such havoc for people in relationships with these individuals. And, by eliminating, it is almost implying that this disorder isn't serious enough to include.

I'm just using NPD as an example. I haven't even begun to look at the other PDs yet or any of the other categories.

I do like their new severity ratings. But, do we have to throw out the baby with the bath water? Can't we have the new ratings and still maintain the diagnostic criteria and the diagnostic features.

Parts of this new DSM are almost unrecognizable to me.
Click to expand...


Well I'm probably just confused...but, they do have 5 categories...and then those different traits. So for NPD for example...what would they do, say first that its under the new Antisocial/Psychopathic...or one the other 4, which ever they think fits most...and then just have different ratings of the traits like what you said? But does it still go under one of those 5 categories first? Because they don't seem catch-all. Is that the new breakdown? One of the five main, and then the level of the traits is what sort of distinguishes one person's condition from the other....somethin?

Still seems to make it more complicated. Granted I'm only a non-psych BA who has no experience actually making assessments or anything. But it just seems to complicate things. Like happyinpsych is saying, it was helpful to have those distinct personality disorder breakdowns with their respective distinguishing traits to help 'organize' and understand and predict how someone with that personality order does and would act, (and thus since knowing what motivates, helps to treat). But having it under 5 with only different levels of the traits distinguishing...seems muddy and less helpful. It's helpful to have the severity levels and trait severity in addition to what was already there...but like you said, not throwing the baby out with the water. (funny phrase).

Edit: Okay here's their rationale: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisio...singFiveSpecificPersonalityDisorderTypes.aspx And yeah it's like happyinpsych already said...they'd only be definied by those traits. If I'm getting this correctly, those now "extraneous" ones like paranoid and narcissistic wouldn't fall under the 5, but would just fall under someone having the generic diagnosis of 'personality disorder' with different traits emphasized etc. Hmm. *scratches chin* Makes a little more sense than what I originally thought, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Aura5 said:
Well I'm probably just confused...but, they do have 5 categories...and then those different traits. So for NPD for example...what would they do, say first that its under the new Antisocial/Psychopathic...or one the other 4, which ever they think fits most...and then just have different ratings of the traits like what you said? But does it still go under one of those 5 categories first? Because they don't seem catch-all. Is that the new breakdown? One of the five main, and then the level of the traits is what sort of distinguishes one person's condition from the other....somethin?
).
Click to expand...


From what I've gathered. No, NPD would not fit under any of the PD headings. Instead, it would be gone as a diagnosis, and it would instead fall under "prominent personality traits." So, in the new DSM, there would still be PD, but there would also be these groups that don't meet criteria for PD but instead meet criteria for "prominent personality traits."

That's the way I am reading it. Confusing.
 
happyinpsych said:
From what I've gathered. No, NPD would not fit under any of the PD headings. Instead, it would be gone as a diagnosis, and it would instead fall under "prominent personality traits." So, in the new DSM, there would still be PD, but there would also be these groups that don't meet criteria for PD but instead meet criteria for "prominent personality traits."

That's the way I am reading it. Confusing.
Click to expand...


Yah, thanks! I just edited mine as you posted this...I went back and read some of their 'rationale.' That's more swallow-able to me, then say forcing paranoid under OCD or something strange. They don't think those 5 that got hacked were stable and consistent enough with their 'symptoms' to exist as their own so they're just leaving all that don't fit under the remaining 'solid' 5 as a generic personality disorder with different prominent traits. Well, you should go post to the APA and complain! Or...constructively voice your opinion. They're accepting comments right?
 
Last edited:
Aura5 said:
Yah, thanks! I just edited mine as you posted this...I went back and read some of their 'rationale.' That's more swallow-able to me, then say forcing paranoid under OCD or something strange. They don't think those 5 that got hacked were stable and consistent enough with their 'symptoms' to exist as their own so they're just leaving all that don't fit under the remaining 'solid' 5 as a generic personality disorder with different prominent traits. Well, you should go post to them and complain! Or voice your opinion. They're accepting comments right?
Click to expand...


I think people who have been diagnosed with NPD are going to be up in arms that their "special" diagnosis may be taken away from them.

Yep, I need to look at the DSM, and then I'll think about voicing my opinion to APA.
 
ive looked at it over again (i havent read all of it, i dont have time right now, but i plan on it soon!), and i think the new way of looking at PDs is kind of exciting. i am a masters level therapist and i work with a dually diagnosed population, and pretty much every single one of my clients has severe personality traits.. mostly cluster B, but several of the others as well. one thing that has been so obvious to me in working with these clients is that a particular client may meet criteria for BDP, for example, but also have strong antisocial qualities as well. or they may be have many narcissistic and histrionic traits. basically, there can often be a lot of overlap. and this is because people are so complex!

like i said, i didn't read the changes and rationale in detail yet, but i'm hoping (and it looks like?) maybe this new way of seeing PDs not only accounts for the continuum (from some minor traits to severe pathology) but also some of the overlap of these traits as well. maybe this new way of thinking about PDs will help clarify some of the overlap by creating a system that makes more sense.

it doesnt look like they are doing away with recognizing NPD traits completely. its not a set of characteristics that can be ignored completely, i agree! there are clients with severe narcissism which of course is a defense against a completely depleted sense of self.. and this information is very crucial when treating such a client. maybe after reading the rationale more it will make sense 🙂

well, i have another snow day tomorrow (yay!) so maybe ill get a chance to read the research behind some of these ideas and it will all come together. so far, i like it 🙂
 
Last edited:
oooh and btw i am really glad they are adding binge eating disorder! its about time!! 🙂
 
cara susanna said:
There are problems with the dimensional model as well though. We were just discussing this in my Assessment class.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are, many of which stem from the basic desire of humans to categorize the world around them... Categorization, generally a good thing, allows us to quickly and logically make sense of the world around us with a minimum of processing. Dimensional constructs provide a great deal more data but that data may or may not be helpful in dealing with the problem to be resolved. I believe that in this case, the added data is valuable and useful.

I can understand those who are concerned about the lack of fidelity in the number of PD types. That's reasonable, but I think the categories are far less important than the actual personality traits and the levels of impairment they may be responsible for. Many otherwise PD people are functioning at a high level because their PD is functional within their environment (whether that be socially, professionally, or otherwise.) These people with PD's can be experiencing problems outside of their professional, social, or other environment and need help in dealing with an impairment in functioning associated with the PD trait.

This is why I like this system, it provides a multi-dimensional way of looking at the problem... To quote someone else, "It's just not that simple." While this was taken from an automotive electronics technical publication it applies even more to people. Sure, generalizations are nice, they allow us to categorize. It's just not always that simple.

Mark
 
happyinpsych said:
From what I've gathered. No, NPD would not fit under any of the PD headings. Instead, it would be gone as a diagnosis, and it would instead fall under "prominent personality traits." So, in the new DSM, there would still be PD, but there would also be these groups that don't meet criteria for PD but instead meet criteria for "prominent personality traits."

That's the way I am reading it. Confusing.
Click to expand...

I'm excited about this because I think it will end up giving psychologists more information about what traits are problematic. I rarely see a concrete personality disorder diagnosis unless it is BPD. Otherwise, the clients I come across carry several PD Dxs or are diagnosed with PD-NOS. Neither case is very helpful in terms of communicating information. A more dimensional approach should help clarify some of these things.
 
lamorena said:
ive looked at it over again (i havent read all of it, i dont have time right now, but i plan on it soon!), and i think the new way of looking at PDs is kind of exciting. i am a masters level therapist and i work with a dually diagnosed population, and pretty much every single one of my clients has severe personality traits.. mostly cluster B, but several of the others as well. one thing that has been so obvious to me in working with these clients is that a particular client may meet criteria for BDP, for example, but also have strong antisocial qualities as well. or they may be have many narcissistic and histrionic traits. basically, there can often be a lot of overlap. and this is because people are so complex!

like i said, i didn't read the changes and rationale in detail yet, but i'm hoping (and it looks like?) maybe this new way of seeing PDs not only accounts for the continuum (from some minor traits to severe pathology) but also some of the overlap of these traits as well. maybe this new way of thinking about PDs will help clarify some of the overlap by creating a system that makes more sense.

it doesnt look like they are doing away with recognizing NPD traits completely. its not a set of characteristics that can be ignored completely, i agree! there are clients with severe narcissism which of course is a defense against a completely depleted sense of self.. and this information is very crucial when treating such a client. maybe after reading the rationale more it will make sense 🙂

well, i have another snow day tomorrow (yay!) so maybe ill get a chance to read the research behind some of these ideas and it will all come together. so far, i like it 🙂
Click to expand...

It wasn't as 'offensive' to me once I realized that not every one diagnosed with a PD had to be in only one of those 5 remaining categories. The rest are just generically with a PD and different levels of those traits. Different but could open some doors, like including people who may not have fit soley into one of those others 5-that-were-cut but had some of the maladaptive traits anyway. If they said they had the research to back it up, that only those 5 were really stable personalities over time...maybe it would work out better. I don't know. It'd take some getting used to but might make sense in the long run. I still miss some of the other 5 though, just as reference points of a trend of behaviors in certain personalities.

So we'll see...
 
KillerDiller said:
I'm excited about this because I think it will end up giving psychologists more information about what traits are problematic. I rarely see a concrete personality disorder diagnosis unless it is BPD. Otherwise, the clients I come across carry several PD Dxs or are diagnosed with PD-NOS. Neither case is very helpful in terms of communicating information. A more dimensional approach should help clarify some of these things.
Click to expand...

definitely 🙂
 
Just to clarify, I'm fine with a dimensional approach to personality disorders (though as a Millon fan I like the prototypical one best 😀). I'm more concerned about the autism spectrum.
 
Wow, I have not been on here for along time. Allowing people to voice their opinions on the DSM-V draft on line at DSM5.org is such an interesting concept. Theoretically, people suffering from a given disorder can help to write the definitions of their own disorder. This could lead to some very unusual definitions and people could literally write themselves out of having a disorder. To raise money, I think the APA should sell the rights to name a disorder. Maybe we should all pitch in and buy T4C a disorder. T4C, what disorder would you like? The disorder of your choice will be renamed T4C and you will get a commemorative plaque.:laugh:
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on the proposed changes to Mood Disorders?
 
FadedC said:
I actually support rolling aspergers back into autism. The distinction between aspergers and high functioning autism is much more fuzzy then many people realize.
Click to expand...


As someone who supports young adults with Asperger's... I do not agree with this from the client perspective. It's MUCH less stigmatizing to be diagnosed with Asperger's than Autism - therefore a lot easier to get by in society, school, employment, etc. My group is quite upset about this proposed change as it will likely lead to drastic changes in their services and opportunities later in life.
 
Asperger's first entered the DSM-IV in 1994, changing it now is too soon. The genetic and phenotype researchers need more time to further delineate these disorders.
 
autismpsych said:
As someone who supports young adults with Asperger's... I do not agree with this from the client perspective. It's MUCH less stigmatizing to be diagnosed with Asperger's than Autism - therefore a lot easier to get by in society, school, employment, etc. My group is quite upset about this proposed change as it will likely lead to drastic changes in their services and opportunities later in life.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's much less stigmitizing to have a diagnosis of aspergers then autism. But given that there is so little difference (or some would say none at all) between people with aspergers syndrome and high functioning people with autism, is it really fair to seperate them and stigmatize the high functioning autistics? I'm not sure that this serves the autistic community as a whole any good, let alone how questionable it is from a scientific standpoint.
 
GiantSteps said:
Wow, I have not been on here for along time. Allowing people to voice their opinions on the DSM-V draft on line at DSM5.org is such an interesting concept. Theoretically, people suffering from a given disorder can help to write the definitions of their own disorder. This could lead to some very unusual definitions and people could literally write themselves out of having a disorder. To raise money, I think the APA should sell the rights to name a disorder. Maybe we should all pitch in and buy T4C a disorder. T4C, what disorder would you like? The disorder of your choice will be renamed T4C and you will get a commemorative plaque.:laugh:
Click to expand...
*fist pump*

I bet if it catches on we can sell some collector plates and maybe a commemorative coin!

I like: the addition of emotional eating, renaming of MR, and the abuse/dependence tweak with sub abuse.
I dislike: "psychosis risk syndrome", the autism change, and the lack of "food addiction".

I'm not sure about the PD changes, I'll need to read a bit more about it.
 
Last edited:
While I understand that some individuals diagnosed with Asperger's don't want to be "lumped in" with those with autism, that really is not (and should not) be the concern of the APA. Their concern is simply what makes sense in regard to the nature of the disorder, and the argument that Asperger's is somehow fundamentally distinct from the autism spectrum holds little water for me. In addition, it's a bit ironic (though again, not surprising or hard to understand) that individuals who don't appreciate being stigmatized have no problem further stigmatizing other individuals. But again, that's really not the point. From a phenomenological perspective, why shouldn't Asperger's be part of the spectrum (i.e, fall under the larger diagnosis of autism)?



autismpsych said:
As someone who supports young adults with Asperger's... I do not agree with this from the client perspective. It's MUCH less stigmatizing to be diagnosed with Asperger's than Autism - therefore a lot easier to get by in society, school, employment, etc. My group is quite upset about this proposed change as it will likely lead to drastic changes in their services and opportunities later in life.
Click to expand...
 
PsychHeel said:
While I understand that some individuals diagnosed with Asperger's don't want to be "lumped in" with those with autism, that really is not (and should not) be the concern of the APA. Their concern is simply what makes sense in regard to the nature of the disorder, and the argument that Asperger's is somehow fundamentally distinct from the autism spectrum holds little water for me. In addition, it's a bit ironic (though again, not surprising or hard to understand) that individuals who don't appreciate being stigmatized have no problem further stigmatizing other individuals. But again, that's really not the point. From a phenomenological perspective, why shouldn't Asperger's be part of the spectrum (i.e, fall under the larger diagnosis of autism)?
Click to expand...


A lot of individuals currently diagnosed with asperger's will not qualify for the autistic disorder as it requires presence of "stereotypic motor or vocal behaviors or unusual sensory behaviors"... these aren't always apparent in individuals with asperger's, and my understanding was that the presence of such behaviors is what distinguishes asperger's from high functioning autism. I just worry that individuals with asperger's will not be diagnosed and just labeled "socially awkward", and never receive services that they need.

I do agree there are a lot of concerns surrounding how asperger's is currently diagnosed, but I just don't think that eliminating it is the right answer.

Article with views from both sides...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100211/ap_on_he_me/us_med_asperger_s_diagnosis
 
Incorrect. Those with Asperger's also must have some stereotypic and repetitive behaviors or restricted insterests. The primary difference between the two is the lack of clinically significant language impairment or cognitive impairment seen in Asperger's (thus the "high-functioning autism" view of Asperger's). And, as the article you cite mentions, different professionals will often disagree over whether a particular child meets criteria for Asperger's, mild autism, or even PDD-NOS.


autismpsych said:
A lot of individuals currently diagnosed with asperger's will not qualify for the autistic disorder as it requires presence of "stereotypic motor or vocal behaviors or unusual sensory behaviors"... these aren't always apparent in individuals with asperger's, and my understanding was that the presence of such behaviors is what distinguishes asperger's from high functioning autism. I just worry that individuals with asperger's will not be diagnosed and just labeled "socially awkward", and never receive services that they need.

I do agree there are a lot of concerns surrounding how asperger's is currently diagnosed, but I just don't think that eliminating it is the right answer.

Article with views from both sides...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100211/ap_on_he_me/us_med_asperger_s_diagnosis
Click to expand...
 
To be more specific, what distinguishes the two is EARLY language impairment. If you have two teenagers with ASD, both of whom are extremely high functioning, verbal and intelligent, the one who had delayed language when he was 5 years old would be diagnosed with autism while the one who didn't would be diagnosed with aspergers. It doesn't matter if they are completely identical now.

This leads to many psychologists completely ignoring the DSM 4 and just winging it when it comes to aspergers diagnosis. This of course makes it's definition even more muddy.
 
cara susanna said:
Article about elimination of NPD from DSM-V:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/h...2&sq=narcissistic+personality+disorder&st=cse

I looked up the other four PDs up for elimination and they are: Dependent, Histrionic, Paranoid, and Schizoid. As a personality researcher, I'm pretty upset by this.
Click to expand...

Why is that?

Personally, as I said in another thread, I do not believe that there was/is much scientific basis to the last or current one. I usually use the psychodynamic conception of personality organization more than anything else. Of course, that does not have much research behind it either.
 
Because they're useful clinically. I think that saying someone has a Histrionic style has much more meaning than saying that someone is this level on x or y dimension.
 
cara susanna said:
Because they're useful clinically. I think that saying someone has a Histrionic style has much more meaning than saying that someone is this level on x or y dimension.
Click to expand...
This being your field, you are perhaps more knowledgeable than I am so please bare with me. In what way is it "clinically useful"? You mean in case formulation? Easier for you to conceptualize the patient by reference to a histrionic prototype (development, relations, ego, etc)? Or mainly because of the research published last few decade using the DSM criteria of past? I think you could still conceptualize a case however you like in your head--though insurance/publications/communication would still make use of new criteria. For instance, Eric Shinn has X personality disorder, but also is this level of x, y, and z. If Eric is very high on X, then you can consider how it interacts with his original personality disorder.
 
I meant for conceptualization, yes, and because it provides a better understanding of the patient's coping, interpersonal, and response style. I know people who don't even believe personality disorders exist, but they find the different personality styles useful clinically. It will also be difficult to evaluate progress and convey information in charts without clear categories. You can make any disorder dimensional, so why only do it for personality disorders?

I also think it's too hasty to throw out these particular diagnoses. From what I know of the history of the DSM's personality disorders section, excluded diagnoses have never really been thrown out because of lacking research and empirical evidence. Usually it's more political. And even if you do think that these diagnoses aren't supported, the fact is that many of these disorders just don't have people who want to research them. I fully believe that if we had the same amount of people researching the other personality disorders as we do with BPD, we would have at least some that were supported.
 
cara susanna said:
I meant for conceptualization, yes, and because it provides a better understanding of the patient's coping, interpersonal, and response style. I know people who don't even believe personality disorders exist, but they find the different personality styles useful clinically. It will also be difficult to evaluate progress and convey information in charts without clear categories. You can make any disorder dimensional, so why only do it for personality disorders?

I also think it's too hasty to throw out these particular diagnoses. From what I know of the history of the DSM's personality disorders section, excluded diagnoses have never really been thrown out because of lacking research and empirical evidence. Usually it's more political. And even if you do think that these diagnoses aren't supported, the fact is that many of these disorders just don't have people who want to research them. I fully believe that if we had the same amount of people researching the other personality disorders as we do with BPD, we would have at least some that were supported.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think personality, in general, is quite fascinating, but it seems that the mental health profession(s), unfortunately, have moved away from understanding personality. Perhaps this is why I am drawn to psychodynamic theories.
 
cara susanna said:
Article about elimination of NPD from DSM-V:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/h...2&sq=narcissistic+personality+disorder&st=cse

I looked up the other four PDs up for elimination and they are: Dependent, Histrionic, Paranoid, and Schizoid. As a personality researcher, I'm pretty upset by this.
Click to expand...


I'm currently coordinating a 5-year NIMH-funded study aimed at developing a more efficient method of personality diagnosis for DSM-V, and I would be very surprised if all of those PDs were to be eliminated from DSM-V. The collaborators of the DSM-V have been in contact with my PI, and our study is proposing a dimensional approach to personality diagnosis.

Rather than diagnosing PDs categorically as they are now, our study is evaluating the effectiveness of a prototype rating system. Essentially, the DSM would include a statement about how people with a particular personality disorder tend to present-- then they can rate how closely the patient matches on a scale from 1-5, with 1 being little or no match and 5 being a very good match (a patient who exemplifies the disorder)... this allows for diagnosis of someone with features of the disorder (a score of 3) rather than an actual diagnosis.

My PI is proposing several personality styles, keeping narcissistic but lumping together certain ones like schizoid-scizotypal. Just thought I'd put in my two cents since I'm researching this very topic!
 
Very interesting, thanks for the info! That makes a lot more sense to me. I'm a fan of the prototype system, actually.
 
The DSM-V does not allow for the true cause of all mental illness: HFCS toxicity. I really see no need to consider what it has to say.
 
Last edited:
Good one...:laugh:
 
roubs said:
The DSM-V does not allow for the true cause of all mental illness: HFCS toxicity. I really see no need to consider what it has to say.
Click to expand...


I've heard that it will include the only therapy that cures HFCS overdose and all mental ilness though- angel therapy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PsyDr
A helpful quote from the DSM-5 for tomorrow
2
Replies
88
Views
5K
smalltownpsych
smalltownpsych
Sanman
New proposed HIPAA EHR rules
Replies
3
Views
1K
PsyDr
PsyDr
asukaran
Work as a part-time therapist outside 8-5
Replies
12
Views
1K
asukaran
asukaran
DynamicDidactic
DSM panel members received more than $14M from industry
Replies
4
Views
799
Sanman
Sanman
Freud’sMommy
Thoughts on the proposed Minnesota Guidelines for neuropsych training?
2 3 4 5
Replies
247
Views
17K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
Top