2009
DOI: 10.1007/s11920-009-0060-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DSM-V and the future diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Abstract: In general, recommendations for the DSM-V and future diagnoses of psychiatric disorders include a dimensional approach to complement the standard categorical approach. For the assessment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dimensional approaches to supplement the rigid categorical approach of the DSM-IV abound. Historically, dimensions based on severity of symptoms of ADHD and severity of general psychopathology have been used. General dimensional approaches described by a workgroup organized b… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
30
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
(119 reference statements)
1
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It seems clear that direct comparison of the relationships between symptom severity and brain-activation levels between ADHD-C and ADHD-I samples will be needed across several meaningful task contexts in order to shed further light on the question of unique versus shared etiological influence. Such a dimensional approach to analyses is consistent with recent thinking in psychiatry (Swanson et al, 2009), as well as the emphasis placed in DSM-V on clinical “presentations” of ADHD symptom domains, rather than diagnostic subtypes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…It seems clear that direct comparison of the relationships between symptom severity and brain-activation levels between ADHD-C and ADHD-I samples will be needed across several meaningful task contexts in order to shed further light on the question of unique versus shared etiological influence. Such a dimensional approach to analyses is consistent with recent thinking in psychiatry (Swanson et al, 2009), as well as the emphasis placed in DSM-V on clinical “presentations” of ADHD symptom domains, rather than diagnostic subtypes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…However, they also implied that the relationship between RD and ADHD subtypes are likely to be complex, and therefore, warrant additional research 9. Moreover, recent studies of ADHD subtypes suggest a lack of stability of subtypes over time and thus question their validity as categorical diagnoses 2729. The retrospective nature of this study and changes in the terms of ADHD subtype over time prevented us from obtaining precise information about ADHD subtype for our subjects, and we are therefore unable to address the issue of the influence of ADHD subtype on the extent of comorbidity between ADHD and RD.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A useful way forward can be seen in another recent DSM-5 conceptual change that recognizes the importance of a dimensional perspective in psychiatry in general (e.g., McHugh and Slavney, 1998; Maser and Patterson, 2002; Haslam, 2003; Helzer et al, 2006a; Helzer et al, 2006b; Helzer et al, 2006c), and ADHD in particular. According to a dimensional perspective, differing profiles of severity (e.g., based either on the severity or the frequency of ADHD symptoms (Swanson et al, 2009) might reflect important etiological differences. Clear depiction of these abnormalities would be missed if one only considered the presence or absence of an arbitrary-numbered constellation of symptoms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%