Diagnostic Categories Or Dimensions

Thought Paper Two
After reading the article titled, “Diagnostic Categories or Dimensions? A Question for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Fifth Edition, ” by Thomas A. Widiger and Douglas B. Samuel of the University of Kentucky, I realized that the categorical approach does have some flaws, but the dimensional approach is not perfect either. Authors Widiger and Samuel believe that the dimensional approach, which classifies by disorders by differing in degrees. An example of this would be saying a person is mildly depressed, moderately depressed, or severely depressed instead of just diagnosing this person with depression, which represents the categorical approach. Agreeing with Widiger and Samuel, I believe there
However, like Widiger and Samuel state, “It is evident, however, that DSM–IV routinely fails in the goal of guiding the clinician to the presence of one specific disorder”. Too often today we see patients diagnosed with multiple disorders when in fact they may only need one diagnosis. Comorbidity is a huge problem with the DSM. I believe we still have a lot of flaws in the system but that over time and with a few adjustments we will be giving patients the best care possible. Seeing patients diagnosed with a disorder with the words “not otherwise specified” following is a huge flaw that I see. I do understand why some clinicians may do this. They believe that their patient would benefit from treatment but do not meet the full diagnostic criteria. I do understand that and I agree that patients should be given treatment if treatment will help. However, we have certain diagnostic criteria for a reason, and if that criteria is not allowing patients who would benefit from treatment to receive it then there is a problem with the system. This is where the dimensional approach could help patients by using a