Rights statement: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=PSM The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Psychological Medicine, 46 (3), pp 449-456 2016, © 2016 Cambridge University Press.
Accepted author manuscript, 349 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Re-evaluating the DSM-I
AU - Cooper, Rachel
AU - Blashfield, Roger
N1 - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=PSM The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Psychological Medicine, 46 (3), pp 449-456 2016, © 2016 Cambridge University Press.
PY - 2016/2
Y1 - 2016/2
N2 - The DSM-I is currently viewed as a psychoanalytic classification, and therefore unimportant. There are four reasons to challenge the belief that the DSM-I was a psychoanalytic system. First, psychoanalysts were a minority on the committee that created the DSM-I. Second, psychoanalysts of the time did not use the DSM-I. Third, the DSM-I was as infused with Kraepelinian concepts as it was with psychoanalytic concepts. Fourth, contemporary writers who commented on the DSM-I did not perceive it as psychoanalytic. The first edition of the DSM arose from a blending of concepts from the Statistical Manual for the Use of Hospitals of Mental Diseases, the military psychiatric classifications developed during World War II, and the International Classification of Diseases (6th edition). As a consensual, clinically oriented classification, the DSM-I was popular, leading to 20 printings and international recognition. From the perspective inherent in this paper, the continuities between classifications from the first half of the 20th century and the systems developed in the second half (e.g., the DSM-III to DSM-5) become more visible.
AB - The DSM-I is currently viewed as a psychoanalytic classification, and therefore unimportant. There are four reasons to challenge the belief that the DSM-I was a psychoanalytic system. First, psychoanalysts were a minority on the committee that created the DSM-I. Second, psychoanalysts of the time did not use the DSM-I. Third, the DSM-I was as infused with Kraepelinian concepts as it was with psychoanalytic concepts. Fourth, contemporary writers who commented on the DSM-I did not perceive it as psychoanalytic. The first edition of the DSM arose from a blending of concepts from the Statistical Manual for the Use of Hospitals of Mental Diseases, the military psychiatric classifications developed during World War II, and the International Classification of Diseases (6th edition). As a consensual, clinically oriented classification, the DSM-I was popular, leading to 20 printings and international recognition. From the perspective inherent in this paper, the continuities between classifications from the first half of the 20th century and the systems developed in the second half (e.g., the DSM-III to DSM-5) become more visible.
KW - Classification
KW - DSM-I
KW - history
KW - psychoanalysis
U2 - 10.1017/S0033291715002093
DO - 10.1017/S0033291715002093
M3 - Journal article
VL - 46
SP - 449
EP - 456
JO - Psychological Medicine
JF - Psychological Medicine
SN - 0033-2917
IS - 3
ER -