Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Alternative futures for the DSM revision process: iteration v. paradigm shift

  • Kenneth S. Kendler (a1) and Michael B. First (a2)

Abstract

Summary

Two major approaches can be used for the up-coming revisions of DSM–V and ICD–10: an ‘iterative model’ in which incremental changes are made or a ‘paradigm shift model’ in which the existing approach is jettisoned in favour of a new nosological model. We explore each of these two approaches and conclude that although they both have strengths and limitations, our field is not currently ready for a paradigm shift.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Alternative futures for the DSM revision process: iteration v. paradigm shift
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Alternative futures for the DSM revision process: iteration v. paradigm shift
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Alternative futures for the DSM revision process: iteration v. paradigm shift
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Dr Kenneth S. Kendler, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical School, Box 980126, 800 E. Leigh Street, Room 1-123, Richmond, VA 23298-0126, USA. Email: kendler@hsc.vcu.edu

Footnotes

Hide All

Declaration of interest

M.B.F. consults with pharmaceutical companies to provide diagnostic training for clinical trials. In the past 12 months, he has consulted with Cephalon, GlaxoSmithKline, Memory Pharmaceuticals, Worldwide Clinical Trials and i3 research.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn) (DSM–IV). APA, 1994.
2 World Health Organization. The ICD–10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. WHO, 1992.
3 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn) (DSM–IIII). APA, 1980.
4 Charney, D, Barlow, D, Botteron, K, Cohen, J, Goldman, D, Gur, R, et al. Neuroscience research agenda to guide development of a pathophysiologically based classification system. In A Research Agenda for DSM–V (1st edn) (eds Kupfer, DJ, First, MB, Regier, DA): 3184. American Psychiatric Publishing, 2002.
5 Hyman, SE. Neuroscience, genetics, and the future of psychiatric diagnosis. Psychopathology 2002; 35: 139–44.
6 Hyman, SE. Can neuroscience be integrated into the DSM–V? Nat Rev Neurosci 2007; 8: 725–32.
7 Kendler, KS. An historical framework for psychiatric nosology. Psychol Med 2009; 39: 1935–41.
8 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn, revised) (DSM–III–R). APA, 1987.
9 Kuhn, TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd edn). University of Chicago Press, 1996.
10 Murphy, D. Psychiatry in the Scientific Image (Philosophical Psychopathology) (1st edn). MIT Press, 2006.
11 Kupfer, DJ, First, MB, Regier, DA. Introduction. In A Research Agenda for DSM–V (1st edn) (eds Kupfer, DJ, First, MB, Regier, DA): xvxxiii. American Psychiatric Publishing, 2002.
12 Kendler, KS. Reflections on the relationship between psychiatric genetics and psychiatric nosology. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 1138–46.
13 Craddock, N, Kendler, K, Neale, M, Nurnberger, J, Purcell, S, Rietschel, M, et al. Dissecting the phenotype in genome-wide association studies of psychiatric illness. Br J Psychiatry 2009; 195: 97–9.
14 Boyd, R. Realism, antifoundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philos Stud 1991; 61: 127–48.
15 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2nd edn) (DSM–II). APA, 1970.
16 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1st edn). APA, 1970.
17 Feighner, JP, Robins, E, Guze, SB, Woodruff, RA Jr, Winokur, G, Munoz, R. Diagnostic criteria for use in psychiatric research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1972; 26: 5763.
18 Spitzer, RL, Endicott, J, Robins, E. Research Diagnostic Criteria for a Selected Group of Functional Disorders (2nd edn). New York Psychiatric Institute, 1975.
19 Kupfer, DJ, First, MB, Regier, DA. A Research Agenda for DSM–V (1st edn). American Psychiatric Publishing, 2002.
20 Regier, DA, Narrow, WE, Kuhl, EA, Kupfer, DJ. The conceptual development of DSM–V. Am J Psychiatry 2009; 166: 645–50.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Alternative futures for the DSM revision process: iteration v. paradigm shift

  • Kenneth S. Kendler (a1) and Michael B. First (a2)
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *