Abnormal Outcome Link: the validity and reliability of diagnosis
Research into the diagnosis of abnormalities have been a crucial part to our understanding of the human psychology. In fact, guided by ideas such as the ones put forth by Jahoda on what constitutes as normality, comprehensive diagnostic manuals such as the DSM have been constructed to assist psychologists in their diagnosis of patients. Abnormal behaviour, as suggested by Jahoda, suggests behavioural tendencies that interfere negatively with one's life, disturbs the comfortability of others, and an attitude that reflects the individual as a person who does not have a true perception of reality. While over decades, diagnostic manuals such as the DSM have been worked and re-worked on to improve the reliability of diagnosis, many have criticized that the manual is too narrow and focused on western attitudes (Kirmayer), and also the fact that most therapists are men (Rosser). This gives rise to the doubt on the validity and reliability of diagnosis. Reliability is the extent to which a study can be "trusted". A study is said to be reliable if it produces similar results under consistent conditions. Validity is the ability to measure what something was supposed to measure.
One key critic named Szasz, completely detests the idea of diagnosis of abnormalities. He believed that it was ineffective and quite frankly, a waste of time, to categorize people into broad groups. Further, he believed that by categorizing people, it may in fact convince the individual that their abnormality is true, even if it wasn't. Szasz believed that the sheer quantity and vast spectrum of individuals in different cultures meant that having a single universal diagnosis was a nuisance. His arguments would later shape a lot of American legislations regarding insanity and prison time.
One example of the unvalidity of diagnosis, and specifically the DSM, as it represents the general understanding of diagnosis, is the constant changes made to the editions. Currently under its sixth revision, "abnormalities" such as homosexuality have once been written as an abnormality, only for it to be removed as attitudes changed. This furthers the argument of Sczsz's: if abnormal behaviour is subject to culture, and culture always changes, then what is the point of having diagnoses? There is no substantial validity!
The above examples are only a small fraction of the arguments against the need for diagnoses. It is also important to keep in mind that diagnostic systems are necessary for comparison (Bhui). I for one believe that our cultures and psychological/physiological systems are not so far apart in the human race that diagnostic manuals should completely be neglected. Basically, universal diagnostic manuals can be extremely useful for the majority of the world, but of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, so we must always keep that in mind while giving/receiving diagnosis.
Research into the diagnosis of abnormalities have been a crucial part to our understanding of the human psychology. In fact, guided by ideas such as the ones put forth by Jahoda on what constitutes as normality, comprehensive diagnostic manuals such as the DSM have been constructed to assist psychologists in their diagnosis of patients. Abnormal behaviour, as suggested by Jahoda, suggests behavioural tendencies that interfere negatively with one's life, disturbs the comfortability of others, and an attitude that reflects the individual as a person who does not have a true perception of reality. While over decades, diagnostic manuals such as the DSM have been worked and re-worked on to improve the reliability of diagnosis, many have criticized that the manual is too narrow and focused on western attitudes (Kirmayer), and also the fact that most therapists are men (Rosser). This gives rise to the doubt on the validity and reliability of diagnosis. Reliability is the extent to which a study can be "trusted". A study is said to be reliable if it produces similar results under consistent conditions. Validity is the ability to measure what something was supposed to measure.
One key critic named Szasz, completely detests the idea of diagnosis of abnormalities. He believed that it was ineffective and quite frankly, a waste of time, to categorize people into broad groups. Further, he believed that by categorizing people, it may in fact convince the individual that their abnormality is true, even if it wasn't. Szasz believed that the sheer quantity and vast spectrum of individuals in different cultures meant that having a single universal diagnosis was a nuisance. His arguments would later shape a lot of American legislations regarding insanity and prison time.
One example of the unvalidity of diagnosis, and specifically the DSM, as it represents the general understanding of diagnosis, is the constant changes made to the editions. Currently under its sixth revision, "abnormalities" such as homosexuality have once been written as an abnormality, only for it to be removed as attitudes changed. This furthers the argument of Sczsz's: if abnormal behaviour is subject to culture, and culture always changes, then what is the point of having diagnoses? There is no substantial validity!
The above examples are only a small fraction of the arguments against the need for diagnoses. It is also important to keep in mind that diagnostic systems are necessary for comparison (Bhui). I for one believe that our cultures and psychological/physiological systems are not so far apart in the human race that diagnostic manuals should completely be neglected. Basically, universal diagnostic manuals can be extremely useful for the majority of the world, but of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, so we must always keep that in mind while giving/receiving diagnosis.