Hagan Leigh D, Guilmette Thomas J
Independent Practice, Chesterfield VA, USA; Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA; Providence College, Providence, RI, USA.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2015 Sep-Dec;42-43:128-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.017. Epub 2015 Aug 28.
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.
《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》（DSM）60年的演变在其编制过程、既定目的、框架以及特定疾病的纳入方面并非特别线性，也不是累积性的。我们根据该手册的明确警示以及在适用证据规则下进行心理专家证言时呈现诊断结果所遇到的其他复杂情况，来考量DSM - 5的既定目的。本综述探讨了DSM - 5在用于法医目的时，在众多批评之下的支撑程度，并指出专家在提供以DSM - 5总体为依据、特别是以神经认知障碍为依据的诊断意见时应预见的挑战。
