At first glance looks worrying but ...

At first glance, it seems to make sense that as definitions of a mental health problem change, so the research surrounding it should be corrected to meet the new definition. If not, then you can run into all kinds of difficulties. For example:

1. If you’re doing a treatment vs. control RCT into an antipsychotic, for instance, you risk having participants who don’t meet the new diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia.

2. Similarly, in studies comparing groups of people who have the diagnosis and who don’t, then you might find you have people in your one group should actually be in the other.

But there are some questions and considerations to take into account.


RELATED ARTICLESExplain
ISPS-US Moving Forward Map
Moving Forward
What to do about language?
New language
"Schizophrenia"
Implication of changes in definition of "schizophrenia"
At first glance looks worrying but ...
Practical problems
Replies to points raised here show research still compromised.
Not a concern
Social constructionist view makes changes immaterial
This makes assumption new diagnosis more accurate.
We don't measure "schizophrenia-ness"
Why change the definition at all?
"Hearing voices"
When diagnostic criteria change, old research problematic.
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip