Reference no: EM131684066

References

Maddux, J. E., & Winstead, B. A. (2012). Psychopathology: Foundations for a contemporary understanding. (3rd edition). New York: NY. Routledge publishing

Andrasik, F. (Ed.). (2005). Comprehensive Handbook of Personality and Psychopathology, Adult Psychopathology (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.

Must response to three classmates posted 200 words $15three part

Part 1

This week's forum presented a great challenge for me. I found myself reading the material over and over again just to make sure I had a clear understanding of it. I am still not sure if I have mastered it to the best of my ability but here are my best thoughts on the subject.

The current model of the DSM has clear advantages within the medical field and advantages that extend to the patient's treatment. The most clearadvantage to the development of the DSM is the fact that the medical professionals have a common standard of language and guidelines in which to communicate their findings when diagnosing and treating a patient.

The DSM gives clear definitions of the abnormalities that the patient could be experiencing. With the cleardefinitions and standards the medical professionals have the same framework from which to work. Everything is centralized rather than having different and varying definitions and guidelines, much like the diagnosis of physical disorders within a patient. That is the advantage of DSM, the clear and huge disadvantage of the DSM is that mental illness is more complex in diagnosing and treating than many physical ailments.

There are many factors to be considered when diagnosing and treating mental abnormalities. The persons past and current experiences, their physical condition to just name a few considerations. Also the patient may be experiencing more than one abnormality at a time. Unlike physical ailments, mental disorders cannot always be narrowed down by scans or blood work. Judgement calls are still made by the attending mental health care providers even within the definition of the DSM and those judgement calls can be fallible depending on how the information they observe is interpreted.

The DSM has provided a better way of improving the diagnosis and treatment of abnormalities and with continued advancements in the streamlining of information the improvements will continue but because of the varying causes and influences of mental health abnormalities there will always be irregularities because of human interpretation.

Both the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Disease (ICD) frameworks depend widely on an all out approach, yet in addition take note of the dimensional idea of disorders and manifestations.

Part 2

Both straight out and dimensional strategies seem important to arranging psychotic disorders; in any case, there is no certain accord on the most suitable classes and measurements or on the best approach for building nomologic criteria that incorporate these 2 techniques. Most dimensional investigations watched 4 or 5 measurements inside psychosis, with positive, negative, disruption, and full of feeling side effect areas most often announced.

Substance manhandle, tension, early beginning/formative, knowledge, discernment, antagonistic vibe, and behavioral/social aggravation measurements showed up in a few examinations. Clear cut investigations recommended 3 to 7 noteworthy classes inside psychosis, including a class like Kraepelin's dementia praecox and at least one classes with critical state of mind segments. Just 2 examines looked at the relative attack of observationally inferred measurements and classes inside similar informational index, and each had critical constraints (NCBI)

Only a few couple would deny that our mental nosology could be moved forward. It won't be anything but difficult to recognize the privilege dimensional and clear cut components. In any case, even little advances may prompt enhanced research and treatment. Better models of mental order may propose new instruments to investigate in inquire about on pathophysiology and new focuses for look into on enhanced medications.

What's more, better models may enable specialists to characterize patients into more homogeneous syndromic gatherings, which ought to enhance flag to commotion for estimations of etiology or pathology (Medicograhia).

If only a few people would deny that our mental nosology could move forward, what is the point of using it. How can categorical and dimensional information be useful?

Part 3

When it comes to the current DSM, there are clear advantages and disadvantages. The DSM provides guidelines that medical professionals can use so that their standards are the same. T

his can help make sure that all medical professionals are on the same page in regards to diagnosing patients. Some professionals that use the DSM are personnel such as psychiatrists and clinical researchers. I think the real disadvantage with the DSM falls under the definition of mental disorders. Although the current DSM provides the most specific definition of ‘mental disorder' up to date, it still leaves room for error to occur.

Even though this definition is very specific, it is not specific enough. With the current definition, there is room for professionals to misdiagnose an individual with having a mental disorder when the reality is that that individual does not have one. With newer models of the DSM, the definition of mental disorder will only become more and more specific. The problem is that no matter how specific it is, there will always be a problem. This is because professionals make the decision of diagnosing a patient based off of these "guidelines" but also off of their own judgment.

They take into account all of the symptoms that the patient was or is experiencing and then makes their decision whether or not to diagnose them with a mental disorder. This will always be a problem. Not everyone has the same ideas when judging an individual's mental health. Mental health is not cut and dry. There are fine lines with several disorders that are hard to differentiate to which extent the patient has a mental disorder or not.