A model for psychiatric diagnosis.

THE ADVANCE of any science requires a widely shared and explicit definition of the phenomena which it studies. For effective clinical intervention and research psychiatry needs a reliable classification system to facilitate communication among its professionals. At present there is a commonly held impression, backed by a number of studies, 1-8 that the current psychiatric categories do not adequately meet this criterion of reliability. Some have advocated a totally new nosologic system, while others have reacted to this situation by downgrading the importance of diagnostic labels. Even if a new diagnostic system were devised and judged to be adequate, it would take years for it to gain widespread acceptance and use. Such a strategy also implies that the accumulated observations and traditions of clinicians for the past century have little value. While attempts to construct better diagnostic systems are not to be discouraged, an alternate plan might

[1]  W. A. Hunt,et al.  A theoretical and practical analysis of the diagnostic process. , 1951, Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Psychopathological Association.

[2]  N. Kreitman The reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. , 1961, The Journal of mental science.

[3]  D. Quade,et al.  A STUDY OF PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS , 1964, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[4]  MENTAL STATUS SCHEDULE COMPARING KENTUCKY AND NEW YORK SCHIZOPHRENICS. , 1965, Archives of general psychiatry.

[5]  H. O. Schmidt,et al.  The reliability of psychiatric diagnosis; a new look. , 1956, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[6]  A. Beck,et al.  Reliability of psychiatric diagnosis. 2. A study of consistency of clinical judgments and ratings. , 1962, The American journal of psychiatry.

[7]  P. Ash The reliability of psychiatric diagnoses. , 1949, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[8]  A. Beck,et al.  RELIABILITY OF PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSES : 1. A CRITIQUE OF SYSTEMATIC STUDIES , 1962 .

[9]  D. Leighton,et al.  The character of danger , 1963 .