 |
 |

"Clinical Significance" and DSM-IV
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
The article by Regier et al1 on the limitations of diagnostic criteria and assessment instruments for mental disorders raises important and critical questions. In particular, the use of diagnostic criteria that were developed primarily for clinical decision-making, in epidemiology and other research projects, predictably raises questions about the appropriate choice of thresholds and the resulting rates of false positives and false negatives.2 The article was nicely balanced by commentaries by Frances3 and Spitzer.4 In particular, Frances' discussion of the DSM-IV "clinical significance criteria" was largely undiscussed in the Regier article. It would be useful to understand more explicitly how the DSM-IV clinical significance criteria could have been operationalized in the Epidemiologic Catchment Area study and Diagnostic Interview Schedule, and how they might have affected the data they presented.
Perhaps more importantly, we agree with Spitzer that the authors mistakenly conflate "need for treatment" with "presence of a disorder." Although there . . . [Full Text of this Article]
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
 |
Challenges in Operationalizing the DSM-IV Clinical Significance Criterion
Beals et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004;61:1197-1207.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Mild Disorders Should Not Be Eliminated From the DSM-V
Kessler et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003;60:1117-1122.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Revised Prevalence Estimates of Mental Disorders in the United States: Using a Clinical Significance Criterion to Reconcile 2 Surveys' Estimates
Narrow et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002;59:115-123.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Psychiatric Disorders Among Tortured Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal
Van Ommeren et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2001;58:475-482.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|