vermontsavant wrote:
aghogday wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
aghogday wrote:
http://crackingtheenigma.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/more-dsm-5-confusion.htmlIf study has significant limitations as identified by Catherine Lord, one of the key research scientists, and also the same person touting the validity of the research in accurate predictions of who will or will not be diagnosed with DSM5 criteria. The most current research does not use actual DSM5 criteria to screen for autism spectrum disorder in people in real life, it is an analysis based on coding data, where 90% of non-autistic individuals are identified with PDD NOS, with the coding data for the DSMIV criteria. Raises a great deal of uncertainty as to how effective the coding data developed for DSM5 criteria is in the study is per real life clinical diagnoses. Imagine that, identifying 90% of the population with an Autism Spectrum Disorder in the current population, with the coding data they use for the current DSMIV criteria; the official articles associated with the study, per research scientist involved haven't focused on that inconsistency. But the guy in the linked article above, may have insight that they are intent on not sharing in the public arena.
maybe i misunderstood your post but are you saying that 90% of the general population meets criteria for PDD-NOS
Sorry, I wasn't clear. It was intended as a sarcastic remark, based on what I see as unusual results from the actual study, that used a screening tool appears to not reflect the results of an actual session with a professional for an actual diagnosis. Their DSMIV coding tool they used, which is different than the actual criteria, was very ineffective, so I'm not sure why they think their DSM5 coding tool will be anymore effective in reflecting actual diagnoses in the field with professionals diagnosing real people coming into their offices, instead of an analysis of previous records, with what appears to be an ineffective coding tool used in the study.
I don't have much faith in the effectiveness of it, and the researcher involved identifies the limitation but I do not think the researcher gives it the proper weight of significance it deserves in her responses to the public, in what appears to be a potential attempt to avoid continued heavy criticism of the DSM5 criteria for ASD.
i didnt think it was sarcasm,i was just confused.
your understanding of these things is way above me
No problem, don't mind explaining it in different terms. The study referenced in the you tube video, makes the new DSM5 criteria seem like it's not going to change many people's diagnoses. But the way the researchers measured it was with basically a check list, that was generalized enough where it made the currently DSMIV criteria look like it was ineffective in diagnosing 90% of non-autistic people incorrectly with PDD NOS. My issue with the method used is if their coding method used for the actual DSMIV diagnoses is so ineffective in predicting a diagnosis how do they know their coding method used for the DSM5 is going to be any more effective, because they are not using any data from anyone actually diagnosed with the DSM5 criteria to compare it with.
The only way to really compare the two different diagnostic criteria effectively that I can see at this point, is to actually use it with real people that haven't been diagnosed to see who will and who will not really be excluded from a diagnosis when psychiatrists actually use the DSM5 to diagnose someone. Autism Speaks has a big study like that ongoing but it will be several years before the results are known, well after the DSM5 has already taken effect. However the study could not be started until the final revision of criteria was completed last summer.
I suppose if the study shows the DSM5 as ineffective at that point, we might have a DSM5.1 revision to make it more effective. It might be part of the reason why it wasn't called the DSMV, because every revision provides the opportunity to sell more copyrighted manuals, that I understand has historically generated over a million dollars after revisions.
The longer there is a delay in putting the manual into effect, the longer there is a delay in generating the additional revenue from the sales of the new manual. So, that might be part of the motivation, to put the manual into effect with no further delays.
26 Oct 2012, 3:07 am
