The DSM‐5 Got PTSD Right: Comment on Friedman (2013). Issue 5 (22nd October 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kilpatrick, Dean G.
• Is Part Of: Journal of traumatic stress. Volume 26:Issue 5(2013)
• Page Start: 563
• Page End: 566
• Publication Date: 2013-10-22
• Subjects: Post-traumatic stress disorder -- Periodicals; 616.8521
• DOI: 10.1002/jts.21844
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0894-9867

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>Friedman in his article in this issue describes the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis according to the <italic>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</italic> (<italic>5th ed</italic>.; <italic>DSM‐5</italic>) and provides considerable information about the process that resulted in the revisions, as well as how PTSD in the <italic>DSM‐5</italic> differs from proposals for PTSD in the <italic>International Classification of Mental Disorders and Related Health Problems</italic> (<italic>ICD‐11</italic>). In this commentary, I argue that (a) the placement of PTSD in the <italic>DSM‐5</italic> category of Trauma and Stressor‐Related Disorders is a major advance because it draws attention to the role of "nurture" when there is an overemphasis on "nature" by some; (b) the broader construct of PTSD in <italic>DSM‐5</italic> is justified because it includes clinically important problems and can be reliably diagnosed; and (c) the web surveys contributed substantially to the provision of data needed to support proposed changes. Concerns are raised about the proposed <italic>ICD‐11</italic> approach, and the case is presented that substantial evidence should be required before these proposed changes are made because they differ substantially from a <italic>DSM‐5</italic> PTSD diagnosis that has demonstrated reliability and validity.</p> </abstract>