Kupfer was actually put up before the APA’s version of a Congressional Committee, the Assembly of the APA, for this. And now, in a letter dated last week, the APA decided that he was wrong to fail to disclose a CoI:
We believe that Drs. Kupfer, Frank and Gibbons should have disclosed their interest in PAI on APA’s conflict of interest form in 2012, and they did not do so. Dr. Kupfer did include his stock ownership in PAI on his April 2013 disclosure…But the APA went on to say that the DSM-5′s dimensional turn was not influenced by commercial interests:
Use of dimensional measures dates back to the 1960s… from 2003 there were entire conferences dedicated to exploring the use of dimensional measures in DSM-5. The dimensional measures used in field testing were selected by the end of 2010 – over a year before PAI was formed. Drs. Kupfer, Gibbons, and Frank did not advocate for inclusion of CAT in DSM-5.Such is the APA’s retrospective. They then turn their hand to fortune-telling, and predict that
PAI will not gain financially from DSM-5’s inclusion of dimensional measures in Section 3 or if CAT is included in future versions of DSM.If and when PAI develops a commercial product with CAT, it will not have any greater advantage because of DSM-5’s inclusion of dimensional measures in Section 3 than the dozens of dimensional measures currently being marketed by others.
"The stock interest in PAI did not influence DSM-5’s move toward dimensional measures."
That’s backwards for one thing. The allegation is that the company was capitalizing on the DSM-5′s move towards dimensional measures and may have, in turn, fueled some of that advocacy.
"Their work on CAT was well known to the DSM-5 Instrument Study Group because of the NIMH grant and their publications, but it was not considered viable for DSM-5 because of its complexity and immaturity."
In the time frame she’s discussing, there were no publications about the CAT-anything. The first one came a month before the Trustee’s final approval . If the CAT was not considered viable, that means that it was considered, ergo it had to have been brought up to the the DSM-5 Instrument Study Group for consideratio.
"PAI will not gain financially from DSM-5’s inclusion of dimensional measures in Section 3 or if CAT is included in future versions of DSM."
But by virtue of being developed by the NIMH, by being advertised in major peer-reviewed journals in academic articles, and by having the Chair of the DSM-5 Task Force behind it, it has an enormous competitive advantage.
"Drs. Gibbons, Frank and Kupfer disclosed their interest in PAI publicly in AJP before disclosing it in JAMA Psychiatry."
The disclosure in a submitted but unpublished article prior to incorporation is a forced argument. They didn’t tell us about it. It’s an off-point legalistic argument.
In medical school, we’re taught to begin every part of a physical exam with inspection. Look at the ear before poking in an otoscope. Look at the chest and breathing before listening with a stethoscope. And that’s good advice about looking at this timeline before getting lost in its details. Every article from the first one in 1993 to the most recent one reads like these tests are designed as commercial products [1, 6, 13, 20, 21]. They’re not better psychometrics. The question is still out on whether they’re as good as [I think Neuroskeptic plans to weigh in on that in his (Part 2)]. But they are quicker and easier. Dr. Kupfer’s enthusiasm for dimensional measurements pervades his commentaries [3, 4, 15, 16]. In Dr. Costello’s resignation, she quotes him as saying, "Thus, we have decided that one if not the major difference between DSM-IV and DSM-V will be the more prominent use of dimensional measures in DSM-V" . He was still at it when the DSM-5 was released [Section III of New Manual Looks to Future]. And if there’s any question about the link between the CAT tests and dimensional measurement, read the PsycsTalk article [23 click page 4]. While there may have been a disclosure in a file drawer at the AJP and an April 2013 disclosure in some APA office, there was no public disclosure of a Conflict of Interest until after they knew of Dr, Carroll’s letter to JAMA Psychiatry , after the DSM-5 was in print. And there were several places where it
could’ve should’ve been mentioned [15, 16, 19].