My three criticisms of DSM 5 have been: 1) risky suggestions; 2) bad writing; and 3) poor planning and disorganization. I have pretty much failed to have any real impact other than perhaps getting APA to delay publication from May 2012 to May 2013. The one year extension was wasted, the risky suggestions and bad writing remain, and my constant warnings that missed deadlines would lead to a mad and careless race at the end were ignored.
With less than a year remaining before DSM 5 is scheduled to go to print, the signs are clear that it cannot possibly be completed on time unless we are willing to settle for a third rate product. The unmistakable red flag is the recent embarrassing admission that DSM 5 will accept diagnoses that achieve reliabilities as unbelievably low as 0.2-0.4 (barely beating the level of chance agreement two monkeys could achieve throwing darts at a diagnostic board).
TONY DIGIROLAMO- IN OTHER WORDS THIS IS THE "PSCIENCE" MANY ARE RELYING ON FOR DIAGNOSIS?!
Got to love this ..."barely beating the level of chance agreement two monkeys could achieve throwing darts at a diagnostic board."
Neat way to describe what it is, what it really is ... A guessagnosis.
No comments:
Post a Comment