The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
DSM-IV and new diagnostic categories: holding the line on proliferation
Abstract
The authors discuss aspects of the decision-making process for including "new" diagnostic categories in DSM-IV. They detail the different kinds of new categories proposed for inclusion in DSM-IV and discuss the risks and benefits of incorporating them. The authors comment on whether new diagnostic categories should be included in official nosologies as a stimulus for research or as a culmination of research. They also highlight problems with "sunsetting" diagnoses. The criteria for change in DSM-IV--a way to deal with the expanding array of proposals for additional diagnostic entities--are discussed. The authors also offer a series of specific examples of the different kinds of new categories being considered for inclusion in DSM-IV.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
From the APA's perspective, concerns about the proliferation of new psychiatric diagnoses going back to DSM-IV resulted in the requirement for a considerable degree of supporting empirical evidence in order for a diagnosis to be added.
“From the APA's perspective, in contrast, concerns about the proliferation of new psychiatric diagnoses going back to the DSM-IV 29 resulted in the requirement for a considerable degree of supporting empirical evidence in order for a diagnosis to be added.”
From An organization‐ and category‐level comparison of diagnostic requirements for mental disorders in ICD ‐11 and DSM ‐5 (2021) · cites this paper as [29]
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 7 · Cited by 96
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- 1917, Proceedings of the 73rd Annual Meeting of the American Mcdico-Psychological Association
- 10.1001/archpsyc.1979.01780010023001 · DOI
- Spitzer RL, 1977, Brunnen/Mazel
- 10.1176/ajp.146.8.1022 · DOI
- 10.1016/0010-440X(90)90049-X · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00960617 · DOI
- Spiegel D, DSM-IV Sourcebook
- Fiester, DSM-IV Sourcebook
Metadata
- Authors
- Pincus, H. A., FRANCES, A. J., Davis, W., First, M. B., & Widiger, T. A.
- Affiliations
- New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
- American Psychiatric Association (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Psychiatry
- Published
- 1992-01-01
- Volume
- 149
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 112-117
- ISSN
- 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-7228
- OpenAlex
- W144488842
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2024: 13 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 54.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
- Keywords
- DSM-IV, diagnostic categories, disease classification, psychiatric diagnosis, diagnostic criteria, psychiatric classification
- MeSH terms
- Anxiety Disorders, Mental Disorders, Decision Making, Depressive Disorder, Dissociative Disorders, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Personality Disorders, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Research, Risk, Sadism, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
