DSM-IV diagnostic criterion for clinical significance: Does it help solve the false positives problem?

Robert L. Spitzer, Jerome C. Wakefield

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Objective: A major change in DSM-IV is the inclusion in almost one-half of the diagnostic criteria sets of a clinical significance criterion, which requires that symptoms cause 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.' In response to concerns that the DSM criteria are overly inclusive, the clinical significance criterion attempts to minimize false positive diagnoses in situations in which the symptom criteria do not necessarily indicate pathology. This article examines whether the clinical significance criterion achieves its purpose and considers its broader impact on diagnostic validity. Method: The effect of the clinical significance criterion on the diagnostic validity of DSM-IV criteria for a wide range of disorders was examined. Results: For many diagnoses to which the clinical significance criterion was added, the symptom criteria are inherently associated with significant impairment, so the clinical significance criterion is redundant and therefore does not affect caseness. For some diagnoses, the clinical significance criterion is potentially helpful in eliminating false positives by elevating the level of required distress. However, there may be advantages to obtaining the same results by modifying some of the symptom criteria. Often the clinical significance criterion has led to the possibility of false negative diagnoses. Conclusions: In the process of revising DSM-IV, the generic use of the clinical significance criterion should be reconsidered. For each DSM diagnosis, it should be determined whether there is a need to raise the threshold of any of the existing symptom criteria or to add a criterion that excludes normal reactions to psychosocial stress.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)1856-1864
    Number of pages9
    JournalAmerican Journal of Psychiatry
    Volume156
    Issue number12
    StatePublished - Dec 1 1999

    Fingerprint

    Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
    Pathology

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Psychiatry and Mental health

    Cite this

    DSM-IV diagnostic criterion for clinical significance : Does it help solve the false positives problem? / Spitzer, Robert L.; Wakefield, Jerome C.

    In: American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 156, No. 12, 01.12.1999, p. 1856-1864.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Spitzer, Robert L. ; Wakefield, Jerome C. / DSM-IV diagnostic criterion for clinical significance : Does it help solve the false positives problem?. In: American Journal of Psychiatry. 1999 ; Vol. 156, No. 12. pp. 1856-1864.
    @article{cfb73ee8437f459194afda4a4cccbfb9,
    title = "DSM-IV diagnostic criterion for clinical significance: Does it help solve the false positives problem?",
    abstract = "Objective: A major change in DSM-IV is the inclusion in almost one-half of the diagnostic criteria sets of a clinical significance criterion, which requires that symptoms cause 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.' In response to concerns that the DSM criteria are overly inclusive, the clinical significance criterion attempts to minimize false positive diagnoses in situations in which the symptom criteria do not necessarily indicate pathology. This article examines whether the clinical significance criterion achieves its purpose and considers its broader impact on diagnostic validity. Method: The effect of the clinical significance criterion on the diagnostic validity of DSM-IV criteria for a wide range of disorders was examined. Results: For many diagnoses to which the clinical significance criterion was added, the symptom criteria are inherently associated with significant impairment, so the clinical significance criterion is redundant and therefore does not affect caseness. For some diagnoses, the clinical significance criterion is potentially helpful in eliminating false positives by elevating the level of required distress. However, there may be advantages to obtaining the same results by modifying some of the symptom criteria. Often the clinical significance criterion has led to the possibility of false negative diagnoses. Conclusions: In the process of revising DSM-IV, the generic use of the clinical significance criterion should be reconsidered. For each DSM diagnosis, it should be determined whether there is a need to raise the threshold of any of the existing symptom criteria or to add a criterion that excludes normal reactions to psychosocial stress.",
    author = "Spitzer, {Robert L.} and Wakefield, {Jerome C.}",
    year = "1999",
    month = "12",
    day = "1",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "156",
    pages = "1856--1864",
    journal = "American Journal of Psychiatry",
    issn = "0002-953X",
    publisher = "American Psychiatric Association",
    number = "12",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - DSM-IV diagnostic criterion for clinical significance

    T2 - Does it help solve the false positives problem?

    AU - Spitzer, Robert L.

    AU - Wakefield, Jerome C.

    PY - 1999/12/1

    Y1 - 1999/12/1

    N2 - Objective: A major change in DSM-IV is the inclusion in almost one-half of the diagnostic criteria sets of a clinical significance criterion, which requires that symptoms cause 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.' In response to concerns that the DSM criteria are overly inclusive, the clinical significance criterion attempts to minimize false positive diagnoses in situations in which the symptom criteria do not necessarily indicate pathology. This article examines whether the clinical significance criterion achieves its purpose and considers its broader impact on diagnostic validity. Method: The effect of the clinical significance criterion on the diagnostic validity of DSM-IV criteria for a wide range of disorders was examined. Results: For many diagnoses to which the clinical significance criterion was added, the symptom criteria are inherently associated with significant impairment, so the clinical significance criterion is redundant and therefore does not affect caseness. For some diagnoses, the clinical significance criterion is potentially helpful in eliminating false positives by elevating the level of required distress. However, there may be advantages to obtaining the same results by modifying some of the symptom criteria. Often the clinical significance criterion has led to the possibility of false negative diagnoses. Conclusions: In the process of revising DSM-IV, the generic use of the clinical significance criterion should be reconsidered. For each DSM diagnosis, it should be determined whether there is a need to raise the threshold of any of the existing symptom criteria or to add a criterion that excludes normal reactions to psychosocial stress.

    AB - Objective: A major change in DSM-IV is the inclusion in almost one-half of the diagnostic criteria sets of a clinical significance criterion, which requires that symptoms cause 'clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.' In response to concerns that the DSM criteria are overly inclusive, the clinical significance criterion attempts to minimize false positive diagnoses in situations in which the symptom criteria do not necessarily indicate pathology. This article examines whether the clinical significance criterion achieves its purpose and considers its broader impact on diagnostic validity. Method: The effect of the clinical significance criterion on the diagnostic validity of DSM-IV criteria for a wide range of disorders was examined. Results: For many diagnoses to which the clinical significance criterion was added, the symptom criteria are inherently associated with significant impairment, so the clinical significance criterion is redundant and therefore does not affect caseness. For some diagnoses, the clinical significance criterion is potentially helpful in eliminating false positives by elevating the level of required distress. However, there may be advantages to obtaining the same results by modifying some of the symptom criteria. Often the clinical significance criterion has led to the possibility of false negative diagnoses. Conclusions: In the process of revising DSM-IV, the generic use of the clinical significance criterion should be reconsidered. For each DSM diagnosis, it should be determined whether there is a need to raise the threshold of any of the existing symptom criteria or to add a criterion that excludes normal reactions to psychosocial stress.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032744012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032744012&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 10588397

    AN - SCOPUS:0032744012

    VL - 156

    SP - 1856

    EP - 1864

    JO - American Journal of Psychiatry

    JF - American Journal of Psychiatry

    SN - 0002-953X

    IS - 12

    ER -