- Created by: georgina2402
- Created on: 14-01-20 16:28
KIRK + KUTCHINS 1992 (EVIDENCE AGAINST)
!!!EVIDENCE AGAINSY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS!!!
- Argued methodological probelms with studies that test reliability of DSM as it has limited generelisablity at the time.
OVERALL: THOSE EHO STUDIED DSM DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE OF IT, SO COULD LACK VALIDITY AND GENERALISTABLILTY
BROWN ET AL 2001
- study of anxiety and mood disorders
- tested reliablity of DSM 4
- PPs did 2 independent interviews using anxiety disorder interview structure from DSM 4.
- Found good/excellent reliablity in most DSM 4 catagories, found some bondary problems within uncertian disorders as these were hard to diagnose as being 'on the cusp'.
OVERALL: DSM-4 IS A RELIABLE TOOL
- Studied reliablity and validity of DSM 4
- 803 PPs and diagnosis of pathological gambling
- Looked at 19 items in DSM 4 that measured this.
OVERALL: DSM 4 CRIERIA WAS BOTH VALID AND RELIABLE
- Prison inates and diagnosis of alcohol and drug abuse/dependency
- Used structured interviews with comparrison to DSM 4.
OVERALL: VALIDITY FOUND AS INTERVIEWS MATCHED DSM DIAGNOSIS