ICD the DSM classification system
Although at first sight the DSM-IV classification system appears to provide clinicians with a useful framework of which to view their clients, on closer inspection however, the picture is somewhat less satisfactory. Criticisms of the system range from Wakefield's (1997) analysis that psychological presentation ranges from problems of living to harmful dysfunction; through to Livesley, Schroeder & Jang's (1994) counter-argument that evidence of discontinuity between different diagnoses and normality would support the DSM's proposal of distinct diagnostic categories. Since these issues involved are quite distinct, both these points of view are presented in relation to a cause and consequence debate. Finally, conclusions are reflected in terms of the classification of the impulse control disorders not else where specified (DSM-IV, 1996). Particularly, discussion is given to the sub category of Kleptomania.Criticisms of DSM -IV classification:The four major criticisms of DSM -IV classification system are (1) that categories lack independence, (2) the principles underlying them are diverse, (3) they are too heterogeneous and (4) the reliability (consistency) and conceptual validity (correctness) (Wakefield, 1997) of
These results indicate percentages of clients who present with Kleptomania yet held differential diagnosis in both in and out patient settings. Therefore, despite the DSM's attempts at repeated modifications to refine this category, the ambiguity of ICD still remains. In so much, common argument that all mental disorders must be brain diseases is due to the fact that all mental states are regarded as brain states in classification (Wakefield, 1997). , (1994) counter-argument that evidence of discontinuity between different diagnoses and normality would support the DSM's proposal of distinct diagnostic categories. Harmful dysfunction results from a lack of consistency, clarification or identification of quite simply, what should be diagnosed where. Likening OCD to kleptomania, McElroy et al. However despite this acknowledgement must be given by the clinician that diagnosis at a more detailed level should be based upon a broader socio culture model that utilises classification not as a primary means of diagnosis, but rather as a system that highlights the possibilities in classification. The harm in this case can result in negative evaluation of an undesirable outcome that is placed within a specific diagnostic category. It was found that clients differed greatly from each other in terms of symptom patterns that according to diagnosis had placed then in the same Impulse control disorder category. In this kleptomania was an evident symptom in what is described as the OCD-Impulse control spectrum; a spectrum that holds no distinct classification, but rather is an encompassing spectrum of symptoms.
Common topics in this essay:
Conclusions Contrary,
Criticisms DSM,
Similarly Fishbain,
Moreover Sarasalo,
Bradford Balmaceda,
Depressive Kleptomaniac,
Likening OCD,
According Wakefield,
Schroeder Jang's,
Kreck Aizley,
diagnostic criteria,
classification system,
bradford balmaceda,
impulse control,
wakefield 1997,
harmful dysfunction,
1998 shoplifting specific,
1998 shoplifting,
shoplifting specific,
psychiatric syndrome,
specific psychiatric,
specific psychiatric syndrome,
syndrome canadian journal,
shoplifting specific psychiatric,
canadian journal psychiatry,
|
Acceptance Essays
