Make Yourself Heard! says DSM-5’s Kupfer – but are they listening?
May 6, 2012
Make Yourself Heard! says DSM-5’s Kupfer – but are they listening?
Post #166: Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-26L
Four further commentaries from 1 boring old man on DSM-5 field trial results and Kappa values:
major depressive disorder κ=0.30?…
May 6, 2012
May 7, 2012
Village Consumed by Deadly Storm…
May 8, 2012
May 8, 2012
MedPage Today
Most DSM-5 Revisions Pass Field Trials
John Gever, Senior Editor | May 07, 2012
“…Darrel Regier, MD, the APA’s research director, explained that the trials were intended primarily to establish reliability – that different clinicians using the diagnostic criteria set forth in the proposed revisions would reach the same diagnosis for a given patient. The key reliability measure used in the academic center trials was the so-called intraclass kappa statistic, based on concordance of the “test-retest” results for each patient. It’s calculated from a complicated formula, but the essence is that a kappa value of 0.6 to 0.8 is considered excellent, 0.4 to 0.6 is good, and 0.2 to o.4 “may be acceptable.” Scores below 0.2 are flatly unacceptable.
Kappa values for the dozens of new and revised diagnoses tested ranged from near zero to 0.78. For most common disorders, kappa values from tests conducted in the academic centers were in the “good” range:
Bipolar disorder type I: 0.54
Schizophrenia: 0.46
Schizoaffective disorder: 0.50
Mild traumatic brain injury: 0.46
Borderline personality disorder: 0.58In the “excellent” range were autism spectrum disorder [0.69], PTSD [0.67], ADHD [0.61], and the top prizewinner, major neurocognitive disorder [better known as dementia], at 0.78. But some fared less well. Criteria for generalized anxiety disorder, for example, came in with a kappa of 0.20. Major depressive disorder in children had a kappa value of 0.29. A major surprise was the 0.32 kappa value for major depressive disorder. The criteria were virtually unchanged from the version in DSM-IV, the current version, which also underwent field trials before they were published in 1994. The kappa value in those trials was 0.59.
But a comparison is not valid, Regier told MedPage Today…”
DSM5 in Distress
The DSM’s impact on mental health practice and research.Newsflash From APA Meeting: DSM 5 Has Flunked its Reliability Tests
Needs To Be Kept Back For Another YearAllen J. Frances, M.D. | May 6, 2012
“…The results of the DSM 5 field trials are a disgrace to the field. For context, in previous DSM’s, a diagnosis had to have a kappa reliability of about 0.6 or above to be considered acceptable. A reliability of .2-4 has always been considered completely unacceptable, not much above chance agreement…”
Reconstructed from data published by A Frances, DSM 5 in Distress, Psychology Today, 05.06.12
“…No predetermined publication date justifies business as usual in the face of these terrible Field Trial results (which are even more striking since they were obtained in academic settings with trained and skilled interviewers, highly selected patients, and no time pressure. The results in real world settings would be much lower). Reliability this low for so many diagnoses gravely undermines the credibility of DSM 5 as a basis for administrative coding, treatment selection, and clinical research…”
Scientific American
Field Tests for Revised Psychiatric Guide Reveal Reliability Problems for Two Major Diagnoses
Ferris Jabr | May 6, 2012
“…The kappa for generalized anxiety disorder was about 0.2 and the kappa for major depressive disorder was about 0.3.
“…These numbers are way too low according to the APA’s own scales—and they are much lower than kappas for the disorders in previous versions of the DSM. Regier and other members of the APA emphasized that field trial methodology for the latest edition is far more rigorous than in the past and that kappas for many diagnoses in earlier editions of the DSM were likely inflated. But that doesn’t change the fact that the APA has a problem on its hands: its own data suggests that some of the updated definitions are so flawed that only a minority of psychiatrists reach the same conclusions when using them on the same patient. And the APA has limited time to do something about it…”
“…Until the APA officially publishes the results of the field trials, nobody outside the association can complete a proper analysis. What I have seen so far has convinced me that the association should anticipate even stronger criticism than it has already weathered. In fairness, the APA has made changes to the drafts of the DSM-5 based on earlier critiques. But the drafts are only open to comment for another six weeks. And so far no one outside the APA has had access to the field trial data, which I have no doubt many researchers will seize and scour. I only hope that the flaws they uncover will make the APA look again—and look closer…”
Psychiatric News | May 04, 2012
Volume 47 Number 9 page 1a-28
American Psychiatric Association
Professional NewsDSM Field Trials Providing Ample Critical Data
David J. Kupfer, M.D.
This article is part a series of commentaries by the chair of the DSM-5 Task Force, which is overseeing the manual’s development. The series will continue until the release of DSM-5 in May 2013.
As of this month, the 12-month countdown to the release of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) officially begins. While the developers of DSM-5 will continue to face several deadlines over the coming year, the progress that has been made since APA’s 2011 annual meeting has been nothing short of remarkable.
One of the most notable and talked-about recent activities of the DSM revision concerns the implementation and conclusion of the DSM-5 Field Trials, which were designed to study proposed changes to the manual…
From the same article and note that
“After the comment period closes, visitors will no longer be able to submit feedback through the site, and the site will not reflect any further revisions to the draft manual in anticipation of its publication in May 2013. However, the site will remain live and viewable.”
Make Yourself Heard!
The DSM-5 Web site (www.dsm5.org) is open to a third and final round of feedback. For six weeks, patients and their loved ones, members of the profession, and the general public can submit questions and comments via the Web site. All will be read by members of the appropriate DSM-5 work groups.
A summary of changes made to the draft diagnostic criteria since the last comment period (May-July 2011) will help guide readers to important areas for review, but visitors are encouraged to comment on any aspect of DSM-5. After the comment period closes, visitors will no longer be able to submit feedback through the site, and the site will not reflect any further revisions to the draft manual in anticipation of its publication in May 2013. However, the site will remain live and viewable.
Psychiatrists can use this important opportunity to express their opinions about proposed changes and how they may impact patient care. Since http://www.dsm5.org was first launched in February 2010, the work groups have discussed— and in many cases, implemented draft changes in response to—the feedback received from the site. This final comment period presents a historic opportunity for APA members to take part in the DSM-5 revision process and help impact the way in which psychiatric disorders are diagnosed and classified in the future.
David J. Kupfer, M.D., is chair of the DSM-5 Task Force and a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic.
Commentary on Dr Kupfer’s report from 1 boring old man
I boring old man | May 6, 2012
Further commentary from 1 boring old man on DSM-5 controversy
1 boring old man | May 5, 2012
dx revision watch 