The rate of speed in which these new classifications were being published did not escape attention. Zimmerman (1988), among others, was quite critical of this rate of change. Researchers needed stability in the definition of categories in order to perform useful studies of psychopathology. Clinicians, likewise, were confused by and had difficulty adjusting to changes in the fundamental terminology that organized the diagnostic process that was so crucial to their clinical work. Additionally, the discoveries and rate of science did not also support the rapid changes.
What popped into my head was “comorbid,” and suspect these rapidly multiplying diagnoses have resulted in too many people given too many labels.
fyi
http://taxonpsych.blogspot.com/
Taxonomy of Psychopathology
Roger Blashfield
Professor emeritus at Auburn University
Still chewing on that one, jamzo. Just read this:
The rate of speed in which these new classifications were being published did not escape attention. Zimmerman (1988), among others, was quite critical of this rate of change. Researchers needed stability in the definition of categories in order to perform useful studies of psychopathology. Clinicians, likewise, were confused by and had difficulty adjusting to changes in the fundamental terminology that organized the diagnostic process that was so crucial to their clinical work. Additionally, the discoveries and rate of science did not also support the rapid changes.
What popped into my head was “comorbid,” and suspect these rapidly multiplying diagnoses have resulted in too many people given too many labels.
Dr. Nardo,
When you come back from your sabbatical, this is a topic worthy of discussion….
An ” evidenced-based mandate for a new standard of care” –
http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/07/harrow-wunkerlink-open-dialogue-an-evidence-based-mandate-for-a-new-standard-of-care/
Duane
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-5-0/requiem-dsm
This lament by Dr. Ghaemi is also worth a look.
Who painted this? It’s lovely.