Department of Neurobiology, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010;6:155-79. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091532.
A pressing need for interrater reliability in the diagnosis of mental disorders emerged during the mid-twentieth century, prompted in part by the development of diverse new treatments. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), third edition answered this need by introducing operationalized diagnostic criteria that were field-tested for interrater reliability. Unfortunately, the focus on reliability came at a time when the scientific understanding of mental disorders was embryonic and could not yield valid disease definitions. Based on accreting problems with the current DSM-fourth edition (DSM-IV) classification, it is apparent that validity will not be achieved simply by refining criteria for existing disorders or by the addition of new disorders. Yet DSM-IV diagnostic criteria dominate thinking about mental disorders in clinical practice, research, treatment development, and law. As a result, the modern DSM system, intended to create a shared language, also creates epistemic blinders that impede progress toward valid diagnoses. Insights that are beginning to emerge from psychology, neuroscience, and genetics suggest possible strategies for moving forward.
在 20 世纪中期,各种新的治疗方法的出现促使人们迫切需要在精神障碍的诊断中实现评估者间的可靠性。《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》(DSM)第三版通过引入经过现场测试的操作性诊断标准来满足这一需求,以实现评估者间的可靠性。不幸的是,这种对可靠性的关注发生在人们对精神障碍的科学认识还处于萌芽阶段,无法产生有效疾病定义的时候。基于当前 DSM-第四版(DSM-IV)分类中不断出现的问题,很明显,仅仅通过细化现有疾病的标准或增加新的疾病,是无法实现有效性的。然而,DSM-IV 诊断标准主导着临床实践、研究、治疗开发和法律领域对精神障碍的思考。因此,现代 DSM 系统旨在创建一种通用语言,但也会造成认知上的局限,从而阻碍朝着有效诊断的方向发展。心理学、神经科学和遗传学开始出现的一些见解为我们提供了一些可能的前进策略。