What is it about?
This article is a commentary in response to an August 2016 article by Kendler and Solomon calling for a reliance on empirical data for future DSM revisions, based on the fact that DSM-5, the latest version of the psychiatric diagnostic manual, was not sufficiently informed by empirical data. This commentary notes that latest DSM revision was in fact a regression from a historical trend towards increasing the empirical rigor of DSM revisions. It speculates that the reason for this regression was the DSM-5 developers' preoccupation with enacting a paradigm shift in DSM-5 (which ultimately never occurred) at the expense of ensuring that DSM-5 changes were firmly grounded in empirical evidence.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
The article highlights the need for those directing future DSM revisions to enact safeguards to insure a strong empirical basis.
Perspectives
The good news is that the DSM continuous revision process will be strongly empirically based.
Michael B First
Columbia University Medical Center Official Bookstore
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: The DSM revision process: needing to keep an eye on the empirical ball, Psychological Medicine, September 2016, Cambridge University Press,
DOI: 10.1017/s0033291716002129.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
