 |
|
For DSM-V, It’s the "Disorder Threshold," Stupid
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Kessler et al1 err in stating that " . . . the Regier-proposed restriction of cases in DSM-V is an attempt to declare that mild cases do not exist."1(p1118) Our earlier article had nothing to do with DSM-V; rather, we merely presented a method for updating DSM-III and DSM-III-R prevalence rates by applying previously unused information embedded in the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study and National Comorbidity Survey data sets to recalculate rates of more stringently defined DSM-IV disorders.2 We applied to the scoring algorithms for an entire syndrome or diagnosis those rules contained in the original Diagnostic Interview Schedule and Composite International Diagnostic Interview assessment instruments that were used to assess the "clinical significance" of reported symptoms in the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study and National Comorbidity Survey. We did not, as these authors assert, require service use in the past 12 months. If our approach to assessing the clinical significance of syndromes is . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Darrel A. Regier, MD, MPH;
William E. Narrow, MD, MPH;
Donald S. Rae, MA
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
For DSM-V, It’s the "Disorder Threshold," Stupid—Reply
Ronald C. Kessler, Kathleen R. Merikangas, Patricia Berglund, William W. Eaton, Doreen S. Koretz, and Ellen E. Walters
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61(10):1051-1052.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Impact of Social Anxiety Disorder on Employment Among Women Receiving Welfare Benefits
Tolman et al.
Psychiatr. Serv. 2009;60:61-66.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
