Citation

Hagan LD, Guilmette TJ. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2015; 42-43: 128-134.

Affiliation

Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA; Providence College, Providence, RI, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.017

PMID

26319182

Abstract

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' (DSM) 60-year evolution has not been particularly linear nor cumulative with respect to the process of its construction, its stated purpose, its framework, and inclusion of specific disorders. We consider DSM-5's stated purpose in light of the manual's explicit cautions and other complications encountered when presenting diagnoses in the course of psychological expert testimony under the applicable rules of evidence. This review considers the extent to which DSM-5 bears up under numerous criticisms when employed for forensic purposes and points out challenges that the expert should anticipate when offering diagnostic opinions underpinned by DSM-5 generally and by neurocognitive disorders in particular.

Language: en