e219 week 19 cont. reading A ‘Problems for the book of problems?…
e219 week 19 cont. reading A ‘Problems for the book of problems? Diagnosing mental health disorders among youth’
Kendall and Drabick (2010)
Once a bulleted list of disorders lacking specifiable criteria, the manual has been transformed to include detailed and specific sets of symptoms required for diagnoses.
the advances in the DSM over the past 40 years are note- worthy, laudable, and move the field in the right direc- tion. However, given our quest for excellence, several important issues are still in need of attention.1
The present considerations will not address treatment implications
the ‘‘mustard manual,’’ a name reflecting the color of the notably thin, out- line-style
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Dis- orders (APA, 1952),
now bulky and descriptive DSM (APA, 2000)
who's the source?
limited agreement between parents’ reports of their children’s behaviors and children’s own self-reports
(e.g., Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987; Choudury, Pimentel, & Kendall, 2003; De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; Grills & Ollendick, 2002).
sometimes parents don't know best- eg annoying gregarious mum thinking reserved child has social phobia!
parents may be driven by other motivational factors to seek a diagnostic label for their child (Kendall & Flannery-Schroeder, 1998). For example, disorder diag- noses are often required to make a child eligible to receive services.
eg. longer exam time
Although disagreement can happen for multiple reasons and can be linked to various disorders, the end results are the same—potentially incorrect individual diagnoses and inaccurate data on the incidence ⁄ prevalence of disorder.
youth is traumatic/changeable time. No change would be odd!!
To their credit, the DSM and the ICD often require a symptom to exist for a specified duration of time before it is taken to be meaningfully indicative of the presence of the disorder.
Should the time frame depend on the severity of the symptom or the type of syndrome or disorder?
what is normal?
what is typical of most people in the same developmental period or under similar circumstances, what is statistically within the average range, or what is not associated with interfer- ence or distress (i.e., not maladaptive; Wakefield, 1997a, 1997b).
When parents or professionals set too narrow a definition for acceptable child behavior, they simultaneously set too wide a definition for unacceptable behavior.
Conflict is a normative part of development (Emery, 1992), serving the role of testing boundaries and providing information about the degree of power and intimacy in key relationships, and should not be mistaken for ‘‘temper dysregulation disorder.’’
who hovers over the child and monitors every undertaking is not benefiting the development of the child.
factors other than EF at play !!
discusses how just cos
not necessarily bad.
obesity bad- but too complex to say EF or parental influence
the same child characteristic could be a strength or weakness, as seen by parents or teachers, depending on the situation (Carey, 1998).
The field of child mental health is, almost by definition, focused on the unusual. And the unusual, also by definition, is not customary.
If cruelty to small animals is a reliable and significant predictor of later antisocial behavior, then the validated evidence of such behavior merits inclusion in a diagnostic decision.
change in criteria for autism now 1 in 110 children - changing all the time