Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Making the DSM-5 pp 63–74Cite as

Establishing Normative Validity for Scientific Psychiatric Nosology: The Significance of Integrating Patient Perspectives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Psychiatric nosology entails a complex combination of descriptive and prescriptive elements. While there has been a great emphasis upon developing empirical evidence to guide the further development of nosology, scant attention has been given to normative questions of what nosology ought to accomplish. A largely neo-Kraepelinian view of nosology has guided the DSM-5 revision process. The normative suppositions of the neo-Kraepelinian view remain largely implicit but, when made explicit, it becomes clear that they are contestable and lack proper justification. This chapter invokes the neo-Kantian philosophical work of Jurgen Habermas in order to address the normative issues at stake in nosology. Habermas establishes a procedural notion of normative validity that would safeguard normative issues in nosology from being resolved in an arbitrary or coercive manner. This procedural notion of normative validity clarifies the significance of integrating the perspectives of patients in order to determine what nosology should accomplish. The fact that normative issues form an essential part of nosology means that we should remain skeptical toward any claims for the validity of the science that ignore the normative dimension of the science while attending solely to empirical issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Regier DA, Kuhl EA, Kupfer DJ, McNulty JP. Patient involvement in the development of DSM-5. Psychiatry. 2010;73(4):308–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Regier DA. Dimensional approaches to psychiatric classification: refining the research agenda for DSM-5: an introduction. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2007;16 Suppl 1:S1–5. doi:10.1002/mpr.209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Regier DA, Narrow WE, Kuhl EA, Kupfer DJ. The conceptual development of DSM-5. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(6):645–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Decker HS. How Kraepelinian was Kraepelin? How Kraepelinian are the neo-­Kraepelinians?—from Emil Kraepelin to DSM-III. Hist Psychiatry. 2007;18(3):337–60. doi:10.1177/0957154X07078976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Spitzer RL. Values and assumptions in the development of DSM-III and DSM-III-R: an ­insider’s perspective and a belated response to Sadler, Hulgus, and Agich’s “On values in recent American psychiatric classification”. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2001;189(6):351–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Robins E, Guze SB. Establishment of diagnostic validity in psychiatric illness: its application to schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 1970;126(7):983–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Murphy D. Philosophy of psychiatry. In: Zalta EN, editor. The stanford encyclopedia of ­philosophy fall 2010 edition. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/psychiatry/.

  8. Compton WM, Guze SB. The neo-Kraepelinian revolution in psychiatric diagnosis. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1995;245:196–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kendell R, Jablensky A. Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160(1):4–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jaspers K. General psychopathology [J. Hoenig and M.W. Hamilton, trans.]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ghaemi SN. Nosologomania: DSM & Karl Jaspers’ critique of Kraepelin. Philoso Ethics Humanit Med. 2009;4(10). doi:10.1186/1747-5341-4-10.

  12. Schwartz MA, Wiggins OP. Diagnosis and ideal types: a contribution to psychiatric classification. Compr Psychiatry. 1987;28(4):277–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zachar P. The practical kinds model as a pragmatist theory of classification. Philos Psychiatr Psychol. 2002;9(3):219–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis B. The biopsychosocial model and philosophic pragmatism: is George Engel a pragmatist? Philos Psychiatr Psychol. 2007;14(4):299–310.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kendler KS. Explanatory models for psychiatric illness. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165:695–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kendler KS. Toward a philosophical structure for psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:433–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schaffner KF. Clinical and etiological psychiatric diagnoses: do causes count? In: Kendler JZ, editor. Descriptions & prescriptions: values, mental disorders, and the DSMs. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2002. p. 271–90.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kendler KS. Toward a scientific psychiatric nosology: strengths and limitations. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1990;47:969–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Insel T, Cuthbert B, Garvey M, Heinssen R, Pine DS, Quinn K, et al. Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(7):748–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schwartz MA, Wiggins OP. The hegemony of the DSMs. In: Kendler JZ, editor. Descriptions & prescriptions: values, mental disorders, and the DSMs. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2002. p. 199–209.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rubin J. Political liberalism and values-based practice: processes above outcomes or rediscovering the priority of the right over the good. Philos Psychiatr Psychol. 2009;15:117–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baynes K. The normative grounds of social criticism: Kant, Rawls, and Habermas. Albany: State University of New York Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kant I. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals [M. Gregor trans. and ed.]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Habermas J. Moral consciousness and communicative action [C. Lenhardt and S.W. Nicholsen trans.]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Longino H. Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in social inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Beauchamp TL, McCullough LB. Medical ethics: the moral responsibilities of physicians. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. A philosophical basis of medical practice: toward a philosophy and ethic of the healing professions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Habermas J. Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and ­democracy [W. Rehg trans.]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kitcher P. Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Sadler JZ, Fulford B. Should patients and their families contribute to the DSM-5 process? Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55(2):133–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Habermas J. The inclusion of the other: studies in political theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Faulkner A, Thomas P. User-led research and evidence-based medicine. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;180:1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A, et al. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomized controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ. 2001;322:519–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Perkins R. What constitutes success? The relative priority of service users’ and clinicians’ views of mental health services. Br J Psychiatry. 2001;179:9–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rose D. Collaborative research between users and professionals: peaks and pitfalls. Psychiatr Bull. 2003;27:404–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rose D. Having a diagnosis is a qualification for the job. BMJ. 2003;326:1331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Flanagan EH, Davidson L, Strauss JS. Issues for DSM-5: incorporating patients’ subjective experiences. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(3):391–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Flanagan EH, Davidson L, Strauss JS. The need for patient-subjective data in the DSM and the ICD. Psychiatry. 2010;73(4):297–307.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cuthbert B, Insel T. The data of diagnosis: new approaches to psychiatric classification. Psychiatry. 2010;73(4):311–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central City Behavioral Health Center, 2221 Phillip Street, 70113, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Douglas Porter

Authors
  1. Douglas Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas Porter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Jewish General Hospital, Department of Psychiatry, Sir Mortimer B. Davis, Côte Ste. Catherine Road 4333, Montreal, H3T1E4, Québec, Canada

    Joel Paris

  2. , Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, Noble Avenue 88, New Haven, 06460, Connecticut, USA

    James Phillips

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Porter, D. (2013). Establishing Normative Validity for Scientific Psychiatric Nosology: The Significance of Integrating Patient Perspectives. In: Paris, J., Phillips, J. (eds) Making the DSM-5. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6504-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6504-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6503-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6504-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation