Empirical Grounding Versus Innovation in the DSM‐5 Revision Process: Implications for the Future. (September 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: First, Michael B.
• Is Part Of: Clinical psychology. Volume 21:Number 3(2014:Sep.)
• Page Start: 262
• Page End: 268
• Publication Date: 2014-09
• Subjects: Clinical psychology -- Periodicals; Psychology, Pathological -- Periodicals; Psychotherapy -- Periodicals; 616.89
• DOI: 10.1111/cpsp.12069
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0969-5893

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="cpsp12069-abs-0001"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>Despite initial aspirations for a paradigm shift, DSM‐5 ended up evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. The requirement that revisions be grounded in empirical evidence, crucial for the credibility of the DSM as a scientifically based document, is inherently in conflict with the push to develop innovative DSM‐5 proposals given their limited empirical support by virtue of their novelty. For example, the rejection of the DSM‐5 dimensional personality classification demonstrates the difficulties of meeting the high bar for empirical validity. Ultimately, placement of the dimensional personality model and other innovative proposals in Section III of DSM‐5 make sense as it will facilitate the collection of requisite data to inform future revisions. Plans to place empirical evidence at the core of an interim revision process raise the prospect that future DSM revisions will be scientifically driven rather than just scientifically informed.</p> </abstract>