The DSM-IV is continually being updated, changed !

Post Reply New Topic

The DSM-IV is continually being updated, changed - no wonder we have trouble understanding ourselves!

The most recent complete release of the DSM, the DSM-IV, occurred in 1994. At this point, the category of pervasive developmental disorders and several subtypes were added. In addition to autistic disorder, a diagnosis could be made under the categories of Asperger’s Disorder, Rett’s Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS).

Besides the inclusion of four new subtypes, drastic changes were made to the criteria that needed to be met in order to receive a diagnosis of autistic disorder. The current release of the DSM has a list of 16 different symptoms used to describe autistic disorder and a patient only needs to exhibit six of the 16 to receive the diagnosis. This is in stark contrast to the language used in the 1980 release of the DSM-III.

The DSM-V is currently in the works and there are large groups of individuals working on changing the language used to describe the various pervasive developmental disorders. Autism has evolved through the four releases of the DSM and it is only natural to expect that it will be refined even further in the DSM-V.

Diagnostic Criteria for Autistic Disorder through the years
Unstrange Minds : http://www.unstrange.com/dsm1.html

That's why I don't fully agree with criterias and they are used as guidelines to diagnose. That's why they keep changing over the years. Maybe the next AS criteria will say there is no speech delay unless for another reason such as hearing loss.

Yup. Next edition's coming out in a year or so, I think.

But that's normal--it's not something shameful, really. Every official diagnostic handbook changes regularly, with new editions as soon as enough changes build up to be significant. We don't know everything about physical diseases, much less about the more difficult to pin down psychological diagnoses. As we learn more, the definitions get refined.

If the DSM never changed, nor got new editions, we would still be living with Freud, refrigerator moms, and "infantile psychosis".

I guess criterias are away to label and help the professional world try and understand our differences, but I do not feel we will ever fit into any set of tick boxes, its a whole way of being, I have so many labels that inter react, overlap... a jumble of confusion within themselves ::)

I'm pretty sure I have heard that down the road that they may lump ADHD with autism as well. I guess if that happens, a diagnosis of ADHD would disappear all together...

The way I see it: Apart from being on the autism spectrum I have many co morbid / associated conditions… in fact a whole list, not sure anyone has it right, including myself. Often our labels can get over complicated... and near impossible to know which bit is which, with many overlaps, but any label does not change who we are. I have my own simplified version - The center as I see it, is us - the Autism heart, differently minded part... which to an extent feel many NTs just do not quite get or understand. So often the most important thing the centre, gets neglected, so its no wonder we are often a little off balance.

Surrounding the center are a web with many chaotic paths, often disjointed and ineffective, as these neuro associated conditions, co morbid mental disorders (or misunderstood difference), environmental factors are all blamed and continue to circle around the most important part of us. I feel its time others started with the center - the Autism Heart, forget the labels. Because if our hearts were balanced and allowed, as I see it. A lot of these existing links in the web, may start to fade... I feel many of the labels are often caused by others misinterpretation, dealing with small aspects of the whole person, often neglecting or not understanding our centers from when we are born.

It's actually 5 of 12 for Autism, with an added 1 of 3 in "functioning" areas. Asperger's is 3 of 8, with an added "disabled" clause.

There hasn't been much difference since Kanner's original criteria in relation to Autism. A few points have been added or subtracted over the years, but the "Autistic Aloneness" and "Repetitive Behaviours" have always been there.

I doubt Autism will change in the fifth edition; Asperger's may get an updated criteria to avoid confusion, but it won't change much, if at all in relation to what Asperger's is compared to Autism.

New editions of the DSM are released every ten to fifteen years. Fairly minor revisions may be released if necessary. There has only been one major revision to the DSM-IV so far: the DSM-IV-TR (Text Revision). A DSM-IV-CR (Code Revision) will be published whenever the United States decides to start using the ICD-10-CM instead of the antiquated ICD-9-CM for diagnostic codes (mainly used for insurance and billing purposes).

Interesting. In 1987, I met the criteria for Autistic Disorder, but I was diagnosed circa 1983. Everyone noticed that I seemed autistic, but because I could talk, they diagnosed me with ADD - Predominantly Inattentive Subtype instead. Apparently, that diagnosis was given to a lot of people my age who would now be diagnosed with an ASD.

My diagnosis was switched to AS last year because of changing diagnostic criteria (no one had bothered to check the changing criteria since my diagnosis at the age of 4).

Although I definitely identify with the AS criteria, I'm reluctant to get too attached to one label because I have reason to believe they'll keep changing . . . In 30 years, there could be 5 official subtypes of AS. Who knows.

I was lucky to be labeled with autism in my early childhood thanks to my speech delay but they were also looking at my behavior. My parents thought the diagnoses was bull. It was technically because I was deaf and to label me with autism because of my speech delay was bull. It turned out to be a coincidence.

I hope NLD makes it into the DSM, but I also hope that it takes into account the different subtypes, and doesn't stick with the "math disability" stereotype Rourke is so fond of.

There are plenty of academic papers which recognize different subtypes, but it seems like most places NLD is discussed (including in many NLD books and some academic articles), the math disability subtype is the only one mentioned.

I got a 740 on the math portion of the GRE (out of 800). I am also officially diagnosed with NLD. The two facts aren't mutually exclusive.
It's possible to have all the perceptual deficits of NLD without the math disability.

My current thinking is that these things should be divided into subtypes. For example, I notice that on this board, about half the people report a lack of imagination, while the other half seem to be more imaginative than most people. It's as though we go to extremes where imagination is concerned.

This could be one criteria for division into subtypes. I wonder if these two groups differ from one another in other ways too . . . who knows, it could be a major neurological difference.

I know. Why can't scientists stop learning new things?

If they had the answer, then their would be no need, or are we changing continually evolving

Well, given that no actual black-and-white, clear-cut, objective categories exist (since all psychological labels are human constructs) there is no one "answer." Researchers just have to keep refining the labels to make them more and more functional. They're not seeking some ultimate truth, but rather just trying to create the most useful set of labels to serve the needs of the widest range of individuals and those who work with them.

It would be much worse if labels didn't evolve, especially as the demands of our society and definitions of the "norm" are constantly evolving.

So to answer your question, "Yes, we are continually evolving, just as the rest of society is."
Perhaps not physically (although I would bet willing to be there have been some changes in the make-up of society from the neurological standpoint), but certainly from a sociological and psychological standpoint. Diagnostic labels serve society, so as society's needs change, the labels do also.

Okay, that ended up being more rambling than I had originally intended, but I hope my message was clear.

YES and agree