My Networker Login   |   


Brain Integration as the Key to Mental Health

Dan Siegel Defines the Attributes of a H ...

Our Bottom Line Responsibility as Therapists

Rick Hanson on Working with the Brain fo ...

Helping Kids Find the Answers Inside

Charlotte Reznick on tapping into Imagin ...


  • kateposey on Brain Science I'm glad Siegel points out the mind brain duality, but his definition of mind (regulation of information and energy flow)is ...
  • lynnlampert on NP0047: Revitalize Your Practice Joe mentioned the importance of title tag but never defined what it was. Can we get more info on this. Lynn
  • katharyn on NP0047: Revitalize Your Practice I am so glad I decided to opt for this series. I was reticent as it seems "everyone" has ...
  • Lisa_703 on Emotion Thank you for putting together this panel, Rich. Very valuable. One critique that may improve on these interviews ...
  • kmartin89 on Tough Customers Loved Mitchell piece on resistance. Some great tools for my tool box; I loved the part about getting out of ...

Revolutionizing Diagnosis and Treatment Using DSM-5 with Jack Klott

DSM-5: NP0043 – Session 4

Jack Klott claims DSM-5 will help in the treatment of anxiety, depressive, bipolar, and personality disorders; substance use, addictions, trauma, and stress-related disorders; and suicidal or self-mutilating clients.

Did Jack Klott make his case successfully to you? Will what you learned today change how you treat your clients? Has DSM-5 already changed the way you assess and diagnose? How will what you learned change the way you practice?

If you ever have any technical questions or issues, please feel free to email

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

9 Responses to Revolutionizing Diagnosis and Treatment Using DSM-5 with Jack Klott

  1. carltonb says:

    This was a delightful presentation, helping me to appreciate the complexity and depth of the DSM 5 and its attempt to correct and perhaps reintegrate psychodynamic concerns into treatment. I especially appreciated Jack’s speaking about the elephant on the table: this is a treatment book, even though it says it is not. And thank you Rich for keeping Jack on task.

  2. hroberson says:

    This session was simply great; the best so far. Thank you.

  3. mhammer says:

    An excellent presentation. I particularly liked your bringing in issues related to the diagnosis and treatment of children, how we participate in creating stigma, the importance of resiliency, and overall, your contagious enthusiasm and appreciation for the complexities of what it is to be human. While the DSM continues to be a document that can be used to obtain reimbursement, it also, as you repeatedly state, invites us to “delve” and “explore”. I hope that each of us will be challenged life long in this pursuit of awareness, knowledge, skill and excellence. Your talk today was an enticing invitation to learn more about the DSM V.

  4. mindfulpsychologist says:

    A completely different angle and one I appreciate very much because unlike the other’s interviewed in this series, which had there own merits, Jack’s information was useful to psychotherapists. Thank you both.

  5. marniel says:

    Thank you for mentioning the stigmatizing of women’s conditions as mental disorders when there are clear hormonal reasons. I have never heard a male therapist acknowledge this prejudice before.

    Very informative, positive presentation!

  6. Julene T. Weaver says:

    Great talk. It really helped clarify a lot about the book, especially the issue about not having guidelines for documentation.

    He said to read Allen Frances’ book “Comprehending the DSM V” but I cannot find this book title. Did he mean the book, “Essentials of Psychiatric Diagnosis, First Edition: Responding to the Challenge of DSM5 & reg”? The only other current book I can find listed by him is “Saving Normal: An Insider’s Revolt Against Out-Of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life.” If possible please clairfy which book he means.

    Thank you for a great interview.

  7. reederm says:

    Years ago as a student I would have been so excited to hear the positive developments as Jack describes them (PERSON not behavior, assessing severity ratings, assessing the situational factors, writing narrative instead of stupid checkboxes, psychodynamic rather than behavioral, etc.). In fact — I’m still happy at the possibilities here for service improvements. Reading the DSM-5 as an in-depth training document makes me more excited about it than when I thought of it more as a reimbursement framework.

    I do have to say though that I remain daunted by — once again — MORE workload and MORE opportunity for insurance carriers to mess with us. So I have to spend much more time documenting at the same or decreasing pay rates? There has to be more detail in diagnoses for insurance companies to use to deny claims?

    It’s all good — and hard really to argue with — but every time I see more detail, more time, more, more, more added without our professional associations also balancing this by focusing on time and reimbursement concerns I just want to pull the rest of my hair out!


  8. plotto says:

    I very much enjoyed the discussion. It was refreshing to witness Mr. Klott’s enthusiasm for DSM V! I am looking forward to delving into it.

    The question of stigmatizing women’s conditions as mental disorders seems to reinforce the idea/stigma that mental disorders are worse than physical disorders, supporting the hierarchy and social acceptability; as if it is, indeed, better (less shameful) to have a physical/medical diagnosis. Just as, for example, military personnel, have struggled with seeking treatment for PTSD (or other Dx) because of the stigma of weakness attached. The stigma IS out there, but the way this question was put to us, the audience, I heard it as coming through the same cultural bias.

  9. velora says:

    Thank you for your enthusiasm for this book. I must say I am concerned about by whom and how my diagnostic assessments of patients will be questioned, particularly by third party payors, when the documentation and skill in understanding a patient is even more subjective than before. The accurate diagnosis is important for treating my patient but having to defend it seems a minefield in dealing with insurance companies. I will certainly want to read the resources you’ve offered.

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>