Reader Feedback: DSM5 Site Brings Disappointment

by Carol Kerr | April 16, 2010 2:14 AM EDT

I also found the system of entering comments frustrating, requiring multiple entries before it would be accepted. It was decidedly not "user friendly"and means comments that are important for APA to receive will be underrepresented because some who try will give up.  Perhaps this is part of the plan?   I considered whether I was becoming "paranoid" about this, but then found it was hard to decide what dimensional rating to give myself in the new system....

So perhaps there is some parallel process here with the comment process foretelling how hard it will be to navigate DSM5

C. Kerr, Ph.D.

by Stan Coleman | April 05, 2010 8:53 PM EDT

Dr. Frances' 19 criticisms are all political---not in the sneaky power broker kind of way--I've no idea what his motives might be and don't attempt to guess or judge.

But rather than basing his objections on science, statistics, or objective data, he's making arguments based on what will come to pass--he's objecting to the political implications of the change in criteria after the manner of Scientology.

There's a place for such discussion but not in a forum such as this.  And I'm personally offended that you've given it so much press.

P.S. Identifying those at risk for developing psychosis is the single most important and challenging task facing a Child Psychiatrist.  I welcome all the controversy and problems that the new criteria may (or may not) bring if it promotes research and understanding.  Anyway, researchers are already studying this category, and clinicians are already treating it--same with Adult ADHD.  How can Dr. Frances not realize this?  Any standardized criteria would be an improvement.

by Leslie Packer | February 24, 2010 11:48 PM EST

Dr. Spader writes: "object reference not set to an instance of an object."What on earth does that mean?

Basically, it means that there was an error and that your feedback didn't get submitted.

The security image (known as CAPTCHA) was very frustrating.  I don't know if this will help anyone else, but I found that if I kept hitting the "can't read it" message under the image without even trying to enter anything, it would eventually gave me a clearer and easy image to read.

If your comment is submitted successfully, you do get a message that says that your submission was successful, that they can't respond individually to every entry, but that the workgroup will get your feedback.  They also automatically send you an email with a copy of the feedback you entered on the form.  So if you didn't get the message or get an emailed copy of your feedback, your comments never went through.

by Henry Hall | February 23, 2010 10:22 PM EST

I tried the same method to submit a comment, finally the comment I managed to get through was a request from me that they email me a mailing address where comments may be submitted on paper. For I have colleagues who simply won't do internet but want to respond in written form. So far (four days later) my request has gone unanswered. I am forced to the conclusion that the American Psychiatric Association simply don't actually want input, merely a plausible deniability that they asked for input and gave an opportunity to submit it.   Perhaps someone else, with internet savvy should host an independent site for input to be actually received and published by the press. Indeed by Psychiatric Times perhaps? I assume everyone agrees that political developments in the modern age have shown that an open and transparent process is the only decent way to go.