The DSM IV-R used a multi-axial system and a Global Assement of Functioning Scale to diagnose and asess level of fucntioning respectively

Discussion Board to answer:

The DSM IV-R used a multi-axial system and a Global Assement of Functioning Scale to

diagnose and asess level of fucntioning respectively. In the DSM 5, all mental health diagnoses

are now under section 2 and level of functioning is left up to the World Health Organization

Disability Assessment Schedule. After reading the notes from course content on the changes

between the IV_R and the DSM 5, talk about which of those changes you feel is better and

which you feel maybe should have been left

Respond to Classmate 1:

After reading the notes from course content on the changes between the DSM IV_R and the

DSM 5, talk about which of those changes you feel is better and which you feel maybe should

have been left?

I am new to the DSM-IV-R and the DSM-5. So, I had to go back and look at the DSM IV-R. I

believe the DSM-5 is a great tool for diagnostic criteria and its text are primarily designed to

assist clinicians in conducting clinical assessment, case formulation, and treatment planning. If

you were trained during the era of DSM IV-R you would have used the multi-axial system and a

Global Assessment of Functioning Scale a assess level of functioning to diagnose clients. To me

it looks like the DSM-5 should be easier to navigate through and it is less confusing. Subtypes

have been replaced with presentation specifiers. It Creates a common language between

clinicians and easier to diagnose clients. Examples is the verbiage in diagnose between the

simultaneous presence of two chronic diseases or conditions in a patient is now just one. Like

Anxiety disorders – The criteria that individuals over the age of 18 realize that their anxiety is

excessive and unreasonable has been eliminated for Specific Phobia and Social Phobia. Slide 27

New Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder for children up to 18 years of age addresses the

overdiagnosis of bipolar disorder in children. This is a good change, now children won’t be over

medicated and labeled.

However, I am on the fence about Autism Spectrum Disorder which now encompasses the old

DSM IV diagnoses, Autistic disorder (Autism) Asperger’s Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative

Disorder, Rhett’s Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder. They all share similar symptoms,

they have different symptoms, but they are not all the same. Some are said to be genetic and

some are neurological, but they all have issues functioning socially. In my opinion the GAF

(Global Assessment of Functioning Scale) should still be used for diagnosing like PTSD OR

DEPRESSION. Sometimes a person is dealing with a traumatic event during a period of time not

for a lifetime and the GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning Scale) would allow for a clinician

to observe the client for about 90 days to see if the symptoms have decreased or increased.

Reference

Alli. (2018, November 11). Pervasive development disorders: What are they? Retrieved May 29,

2020, from https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/development-disorder

Bhandari, S. (2018, May 20). Asperger’s syndrome: Symptoms, Tests, diagnosis, and treatment.

Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/mental-health-aspergers-

syndrome

Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (dsm–5). (n.d.). Retrieved May 29, 2020,

from https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm

Goldberg. (2017, February 07). Chronic depression (dysthymia): Symptoms, treatments, and

more. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from https://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/chronic-

depression-dysthymia#2

Respond to Classmate 2:

This is my second semester of graduate school and the last time I saw the DSM was before 2008

when I completed my B.S in Psychology. According to our notes in course content the changes

were made in order to create a more homogeneous and scientifically valid and reliable set of

criteria for diagnosis. The criteria for individual disorder definitions in the DSM-5 have been

subjected to scientific review and field testing for reliability. Increase comprehensibility and

utility. Formerly high rates of comorbidity across axes, creating an overuse of the NOS criteria.

There were other changes listed in the notes as well. From what I read it appears that the changes

are to make it easier and clearer to diagnose a patient. Also the changes made were to help those

who are diagnosing to communicate better with other professionals.

I feel that the changes which are better are the ones that relate to communication Disorders. It

appears that previously it was a broad and two category disorder (phonological disorder and

stuttering). Now it is the language disorder and contains: speech disorder, child-onset fluency

disorder and social (pragmatic) communication disorder. The last one is new and it related to

persistent difficulties in the social uses of verbal and nonverbal communication. I think this was

a change to the positive as it allows for an additional category that was severely lacking before. It

also seems to identify the disorders better and makes it easier to communicate about them. It is

also apparent that some disorders were moved to different sections or they have been separated

into individual disorders. The restructure makes more sense to me and I feel that it makes for a

clear diagnosis and it is less broad. I also liked that panic attacks can now be listed as a specifier

that it applicable to all DSM-5 disorders. The biggest change for me that I am impressed by was

the Trauma related and stress disorders section. The fact that PTSD and acute stress disorder

have been removed from anxiety disorders and moved to the new chapter is monumental. I am a

police officer and have personally seen and experienced PTSD. I feel that research and

understanding in this area is evolving and growing rapidly. People are taking this serious and it

shows in the restructure of the DSM-5.

I am still very new and trying to understand the material. What I found confusing or was better

left along was the range of severity. It seems to be very broad and could affect those with severe

issues. Having mild symptoms could allow someone to take advantage of a diagnosis. In my

profession I see where people take advantage any way they can, you give them an inch and they

take a foot. I would hope with better understanding of the DSM-5 my opinion on this part will

change or that maybe I am interpreting this through life experiences and not through an unbiased

opinion.

 

"Get yourself this Paper or a similar one at an unbeatable discount!"

"Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now