My Networker Login   |   
feed-60facebook-60twitter-60linkedin-60youtube-60
 

Answering the Critics: Inside the Decision-Making for DSM-5 with Darrel Regier

DSM-5: NP0043 – Session 3

Are you interested in the reasoning behind the major revisions made to the new DSM? Join Darrel Regier as he discusses the scientific reasoning behind changes made to DSM-5, criticisms and the APA’s responses to them, and why new diagnoses were introduced while others were removed.

After the session, please let us know what you think. If you ever have any technical questions or issues, please feel free to email support@psychotherapynetworker.org.

Posted in CE Comments, NP0043: DSM-5 | Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Answering the Critics: Inside the Decision-Making for DSM-5 with Darrel Regier

  1. This was a very helpful presentation. It made clearer to me the rationale for the reorganization of the DSM 5, and increased my confidence in it and my ability to understand it. I opened my DSM 5 to the assessment measures as Dr. Regier was speaking to the changes from the GAF and was able to follow along. I could see the clinical benefits to this new DSM, a corrective from too rigid categories, perhaps, without giving up on trying to understand mental illness better. I can see also why there would be resistance to this, as to any paradigm shift, but I predict that in a few years your critics will say, “We were doing this all along!” Thank you.

  2. TherapistLCSW says:

    This was a refreshing look at the development of the DSM 5 from the point of view of what was the thinking behind the changes that were made, as well as the rationale for some of the major changes. We got to see this from several different angles: the global influences upon these changes, the clinical picture from the point of view of researchers vs. theorists, the challenges it poses to mental health practitioners, but also the evolution of our field. It seems like this large team of people who worked to develop this was thinking of many different influences to the challenge and development of diagnosing mental illness, while still trying to help us keep up with the changes that continue to occur in response to research. I got a greater appreciation of how we all need to take some responsibility for the evolution of our work as mental health practitioners in an evolving world! Thanks.

  3. mindfulpsychologist says:

    I too found this to be an enlightening and useful interview. It opened my eyes to their thinking and reasoning for making so many changes.

    This is what I heard in this discussion -
    Essentially we, the clients and practitioners, are all in a huge experiment where forms of “mental illness” are being studied for their causes which fall across various dimensions that are physical, emotional, neurological and environmental in nature.

    What troubled me though, is that the terms psychology and therapy and psychologist were never mentioned. The terms used were psychiatrist, medical, neurological.

    Where does therapy fit into this burgeoning view of mental illness as mostly or primarily physiological, including genetics, based?

    Honestly I don’t, and haven’t for a long time, disagree with that notion when it comes to major disorders. Less severe disorders I take exception. I believe that treatments which fall under the broad spectrum of talk therapies can and do help clients eliminate symptoms and grow away from counterproductive ways of being.

    I would hav liked to hear some of that thinking being expressed by the DSM-5 people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>