DSM5 Final Recommendations

Post Reply New Topic

The final public comment period ended June 15. So when does each department make their final recommendations, before publication in May 2013.

If I remember correctly, December.

Is it in stone that the Asperger's terminology will be null and void in December?

It will be 100% in stone when the final version is done, but it's at least 99% for sure.

I'm new to all of this...what exactly is going to change in the DSM5?

The different diagnoses on the autism spectrum are getting merged into one (I'm not sure what they're doing with CDD) - just Autism Spectrum Disorder. So instead of Autistic Disorder (classic autism), Asperger's Syndrome, and PDD-NOS, they're going to have just ASD, with three possible severity levels for each of social and rituals and repetitive behaviors. They're also making some changes to the diagnostic criteria like finally including sensory issues as a possible trait.

HERE is the current proposal.

This has been something that has been argued about a lot, some of us are very supportive of this (including myself), while others are very not, and feel that Asperger's should remain separate.

Oh, thanks for explaining that. I didn't realize that sensory issues weren't listed as a possible trait, I'm kind of surprised to hear that.

I can see the benefits . . . but AS is such a broad spectrum that this is really going to impair high functioning individuals from getting diagnosed properly and I think this because a lot of professionals do not like to give the diagnosis in the first place and they can use the new criteria to deem certain items non apparent and therefore disqualify folks.

The APA has actually improved the diagnostic criteria. They are not as restrictive as they were just a few months ago.

There has been no evidence of that, only people repeating it over and over again.

Yes, there are biases. And yes, some professionals won't diagnose people who should be diagnosed. But there has been no evidence that these changes will impair high functioning individuals from being diagnosed properly. The latest I've heard - don't have good citation for it, because it was just on a facebook update on the recent talks on it, was that the current things they're looking at actually will diagnose a few more people than the DSM-IV would have.

I asked my daughter's neurologist what he thought would happen to her diagnosis after the change and his response was basically "She is autistic no matter what the diagnostic criteria says." IOW, I think there will be some clinicians who continue to use their experience and expertise.

IMHO, there are some people, like my daughter, who do not neatly fit any criteria--so it doesn't really matter what the criteria is--but if you really understand what autism is at the most fundamental level, you can see it. For her I think the biggest defining characteristic is the inability to learn anything incidentally, even though she has superior intelligence. She has had to learn everything from pointing, to waving, to speaking, to approaching other kids, to having reciprocal communications, etc. in a very systematic manner. This is a common trait of many people on the spectrum that I have crossed paths with, but it is nowhere in the diagnostic criteria. Or, I don't know...maybe it's just her and the people I've met?

The initial criteria were very upsetting for me because I know many kids who would lose their diagnoses and be left without support and assistance at school. However, the most recent ones I saw were broadened a bit. As long as people are not left to struggle needlessly, I don't see the harm in the change, though I still suspect the bottom line reason for the changes was...well...the bottom-line. That part leaves me sick.

I actually heard September.

Even if it's out of the DSM-5, it's not like I'm going to stop saying I have Asperger's Syndrome! Just because it's out of the DSM doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I also have Nonverbal Learning Disorder, which has never been included in the DSM. But does that mean I don't have it? Certainly not.

Yes......I think the original proposal was way too restrictive but reading what the criteria will now be I think this change is for the best.

I concur.

I wish they would include NVLD in this edition of the DSM. They could put it under neurodevelopmental disorders along with ADHD and ASD......it'd be perfect.