Should prolonged grief be reclassified as a mental disorder in DSM-5? Reconsidering the empirical and conceptual arguments for complicated grief disorder

Jerome C. Wakefield

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    Abstract

    The proposed changes to DSM-5 will create new categories of mental disorder (referred to here generically as Prolonged Grief Disorder'' [PGD]) to diagnose individuals experiencing prolonged intense grief reactions to the loss of a loved one. Individuals could be diagnosed even if they have no depressive or anxiety symptoms but only symptoms typical of grief (e.g., yearning, avoidance of reminders, disbelief, feelings of emptiness). The main challenge for such proposals is to establish that the proposed diagnostic criteria validly discriminate a genuine psychiatric disorder of grief from intense normal grief. With this test in mind, I evaluate the soundness of four empirical arguments and one conceptual argument that have been put forward to support such proposals: (1) PGD has discriminant validity because distinctive, pathognomonic symptoms distinguish it from normal grief; (2) PGD has discriminant validity because it identifies grief symptoms that are of greater absolute severity than in normal grief; (3) PGD has predictive validity because it implies a chronic, interminable process of grieving, thus a derailment of the normal process of grief resolution; (4) PGD has predictive validity because it predicts negative mental and physical health outcomes unlikely in normal grief; and (5) PGD has conceptual validity because grief is analogous to a wound or, alternatively, lengthy grief is analogous to a wound that does not heal. Upon close examination, each of these arguments turns out to have serious empirical or conceptual deficiencies. I conclude that the proposed diagnostic criteria for PGD fail to discriminate disorder from intense normal grief and are likely to yield massive false-positive diagnoses. Consequently, the proposal to add pathological grief categories to DSM-5 should be withdrawn pending further research to identify more valid criteria for diagnosing PGD.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)499-511
    Number of pages13
    JournalJournal of Nervous and Mental Disease
    Volume200
    Issue number6
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jun 1 2012

    Fingerprint

    Grief
    Mental Disorders

    Keywords

    • bereavement
    • complicated grief
    • diagnosis
    • DSM-5
    • harmful dysfunction
    • prolonged grief
    • validity

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Psychiatry and Mental health

    Cite this

    Should prolonged grief be reclassified as a mental disorder in DSM-5? Reconsidering the empirical and conceptual arguments for complicated grief disorder. / Wakefield, Jerome C.

    In: Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 200, No. 6, 01.06.2012, p. 499-511.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    @article{d4f0e681e0574953a33f4b3419790961,
    title = "Should prolonged grief be reclassified as a mental disorder in DSM-5?: Reconsidering the empirical and conceptual arguments for complicated grief disorder",
    abstract = "The proposed changes to DSM-5 will create new categories of mental disorder (referred to here generically as Prolonged Grief Disorder'' [PGD]) to diagnose individuals experiencing prolonged intense grief reactions to the loss of a loved one. Individuals could be diagnosed even if they have no depressive or anxiety symptoms but only symptoms typical of grief (e.g., yearning, avoidance of reminders, disbelief, feelings of emptiness). The main challenge for such proposals is to establish that the proposed diagnostic criteria validly discriminate a genuine psychiatric disorder of grief from intense normal grief. With this test in mind, I evaluate the soundness of four empirical arguments and one conceptual argument that have been put forward to support such proposals: (1) PGD has discriminant validity because distinctive, pathognomonic symptoms distinguish it from normal grief; (2) PGD has discriminant validity because it identifies grief symptoms that are of greater absolute severity than in normal grief; (3) PGD has predictive validity because it implies a chronic, interminable process of grieving, thus a derailment of the normal process of grief resolution; (4) PGD has predictive validity because it predicts negative mental and physical health outcomes unlikely in normal grief; and (5) PGD has conceptual validity because grief is analogous to a wound or, alternatively, lengthy grief is analogous to a wound that does not heal. Upon close examination, each of these arguments turns out to have serious empirical or conceptual deficiencies. I conclude that the proposed diagnostic criteria for PGD fail to discriminate disorder from intense normal grief and are likely to yield massive false-positive diagnoses. Consequently, the proposal to add pathological grief categories to DSM-5 should be withdrawn pending further research to identify more valid criteria for diagnosing PGD.",
    keywords = "bereavement, complicated grief, diagnosis, DSM-5, harmful dysfunction, prolonged grief, validity",
    author = "Wakefield, {Jerome C.}",
    year = "2012",
    month = "6",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182482155",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "200",
    pages = "499--511",
    journal = "Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease",
    issn = "0022-3018",
    publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
    number = "6",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Should prolonged grief be reclassified as a mental disorder in DSM-5?

    T2 - Reconsidering the empirical and conceptual arguments for complicated grief disorder

    AU - Wakefield, Jerome C.

    PY - 2012/6/1

    Y1 - 2012/6/1

    N2 - The proposed changes to DSM-5 will create new categories of mental disorder (referred to here generically as Prolonged Grief Disorder'' [PGD]) to diagnose individuals experiencing prolonged intense grief reactions to the loss of a loved one. Individuals could be diagnosed even if they have no depressive or anxiety symptoms but only symptoms typical of grief (e.g., yearning, avoidance of reminders, disbelief, feelings of emptiness). The main challenge for such proposals is to establish that the proposed diagnostic criteria validly discriminate a genuine psychiatric disorder of grief from intense normal grief. With this test in mind, I evaluate the soundness of four empirical arguments and one conceptual argument that have been put forward to support such proposals: (1) PGD has discriminant validity because distinctive, pathognomonic symptoms distinguish it from normal grief; (2) PGD has discriminant validity because it identifies grief symptoms that are of greater absolute severity than in normal grief; (3) PGD has predictive validity because it implies a chronic, interminable process of grieving, thus a derailment of the normal process of grief resolution; (4) PGD has predictive validity because it predicts negative mental and physical health outcomes unlikely in normal grief; and (5) PGD has conceptual validity because grief is analogous to a wound or, alternatively, lengthy grief is analogous to a wound that does not heal. Upon close examination, each of these arguments turns out to have serious empirical or conceptual deficiencies. I conclude that the proposed diagnostic criteria for PGD fail to discriminate disorder from intense normal grief and are likely to yield massive false-positive diagnoses. Consequently, the proposal to add pathological grief categories to DSM-5 should be withdrawn pending further research to identify more valid criteria for diagnosing PGD.

    AB - The proposed changes to DSM-5 will create new categories of mental disorder (referred to here generically as Prolonged Grief Disorder'' [PGD]) to diagnose individuals experiencing prolonged intense grief reactions to the loss of a loved one. Individuals could be diagnosed even if they have no depressive or anxiety symptoms but only symptoms typical of grief (e.g., yearning, avoidance of reminders, disbelief, feelings of emptiness). The main challenge for such proposals is to establish that the proposed diagnostic criteria validly discriminate a genuine psychiatric disorder of grief from intense normal grief. With this test in mind, I evaluate the soundness of four empirical arguments and one conceptual argument that have been put forward to support such proposals: (1) PGD has discriminant validity because distinctive, pathognomonic symptoms distinguish it from normal grief; (2) PGD has discriminant validity because it identifies grief symptoms that are of greater absolute severity than in normal grief; (3) PGD has predictive validity because it implies a chronic, interminable process of grieving, thus a derailment of the normal process of grief resolution; (4) PGD has predictive validity because it predicts negative mental and physical health outcomes unlikely in normal grief; and (5) PGD has conceptual validity because grief is analogous to a wound or, alternatively, lengthy grief is analogous to a wound that does not heal. Upon close examination, each of these arguments turns out to have serious empirical or conceptual deficiencies. I conclude that the proposed diagnostic criteria for PGD fail to discriminate disorder from intense normal grief and are likely to yield massive false-positive diagnoses. Consequently, the proposal to add pathological grief categories to DSM-5 should be withdrawn pending further research to identify more valid criteria for diagnosing PGD.

    KW - bereavement

    KW - complicated grief

    KW - diagnosis

    KW - DSM-5

    KW - harmful dysfunction

    KW - prolonged grief

    KW - validity

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862214365&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84862214365&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182482155

    DO - 10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182482155

    M3 - Review article

    C2 - 22652615

    AN - SCOPUS:84862214365

    VL - 200

    SP - 499

    EP - 511

    JO - Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

    JF - Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease

    SN - 0022-3018

    IS - 6

    ER -