Forensic Forum: Will Forensic Psychiatry survive DSM-5?

Kaliski, Sean

doi:10.4314/ajpsy.v15i1.2

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clinical and counselling psychologists have the expertise to review the literature, to do the research, and to determine the veracity of these claims. First (2010c), Frances (2010e), and Kaliski (2012) argued that the forensic risks of some disorders were not adequately considered. Frances (2010b) lamented that TDD would be used by lawyers as an excuse for misbehaviour and lead to unforeseen forensic problems.…”

Section: The Disorders and Diagnostic Criteriamentioning

confidence: 97%

“…First (2010c), Frances (2010e), and Kaliski (2012) argued that the forensic risks of some disorders were not adequately considered. Frances (2010b) lamented that TDD would be used by lawyers as an excuse for misbehaviour and lead to unforeseen forensic problems.…”

Section: How Should Psychologists Respond?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early consultation with, rather than exclusion of, predictably interested parties could have reduced anxiety and suspicion. The response of the APA to the allegations of secrecy was so ineffective that 4 years after Spitzer raised the issue, the accusation was still being made (Kaliski, 2012). Moreover, the Task Force used inflammatory language.…”

Section: How Should Psychologists Respond?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First (2010c) was concerned about the broadness of the range of qualifying traumatic stressors, and the increased opportunity this gives to individuals to malinger when reporting subjective symptoms in personal injury cases. Kaliski (2012) argued that many of the new DSM-5 disorders will not satisfy the requirement of forensic utility. Forensic psychologists have the expertise to examine these disorders and diagnostic criteria, and to evaluate their forensic risks.…”

Section: How Should Psychologists Respond?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The DSM-5 controversies: How should psychologists respond?

Welch¹,

Klassen²,

Borisova³

et al. 2013

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) published DSM-5 in May 2013. The revision process was fraught with controversy. In the first section of this article, we briefly summarise the controversies related to the actions of the APA and the Task Force responsible for the revision process. These include allegations of secrecy, accusations of conflicts of interest, apprehension over a promised paradigm shift, concerns about the definition of mental disorder, charges of medicalizing normality, and claims of poor methodology. In the second section, we briefly summarise the controversies related to some of the revisions to the DSM-5 disorders and diagnostic criteria. In the third section, we argue that DSM-5 development was unnecessarily contentious for reasons that could have been foreseen and prevented. Because incremental updates to the DSM-5 are anticipated in the near future (American Psychiatric Association, 2010, APA modifies DSM naming convention to reflect publication changes, Washington, DC: Author), we propose that psychologists external to the revision process should use their unique expertise to assist in resolving the controversies that have beset the DSM-5 and thereby facilitate a less contentious development of the next iteration of the DSM.Peer reviewedResearch articleDSM-5ControversiesPsychologist

show abstract

Section: The Disorders and Diagnostic Criteriamentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: How Should Psychologists Respond?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Should Psychologists Respond?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Should Psychologists Respond?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations