Psychiatrist are medically trained and have a grounding in the medical model.
You get ill, you find the physical cause, you use a physical cure. If this does not take place you stay ill.
Psychology is a vast science that is very often statistical. It covers the behaviours of global corporartions, athletes, how we process visual images, how we can recognise other people as conscious entities, how we can be conscious entities.
You seem to restrict psychology to clinical, which is still evidence led. Many psychologist do treat people, but in doing so they do research into behaviour and cognition.
With regards to the reliability and validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale you can find published research on the net.
The reliability and validity are determined statistically.
If this is not good enough then you are bashing statistics; not psychology. The evidence of clusters of symptoms that can be labled as (say) OCD is very good and improving all the time (hence the itterations of the DSM and the ICD.
I make an assumption that you have not read the DSM. It explains in very good detail the indicators for specific treatments (all based on research evidence).
No problem with engaging on this issue: it is one close to my heart and if I come across a bit terse it's only because to me these points are PRATTs that I field at work pretty often.
That said I appologise if I came sounded like a git.
Patients fill out questionnaires about their behavior and thoughts. Layman and psychologists ask patient about their behaviors and thoughts and presumably get honest answers.
You would have questionnaires that volunteers and patients would fill out, it would list a lot of general questions, yet buried in them would be ones keyed to making diagnosis of various conditions (say OCD behavior). They would not know that it was about disease diagnosis (it could be run as a study on precognition or esp for instance). The questionnaires would then be evaluated by lay people and psychologists, with the lay people given criteria to look for in answers to certain questions, and the psychologists to make diagnosis on those questions (they'd probably guess if just given the criteria).
quote:So you are looking at the early 70 for the DSM and the 90s (yikes) for the ICD for diagnostic change.
I'm reading some literature right now wrt to the conceptual changes that accompanied the DSM-III and general ideas about mental health, so hopefully I'll be able to make my post a little more informed soon.
From what I read, though, it was mainly the outrage and petitioning of the homosexual community that resulted in the change. In other words, there was no major conceptual shift or empirical results that prompted it. You may say that there was never any reason to regard it as a mental disorder, which may be the case.
But, to clarify the issue for me: if I wanted to propose homosexuality as a mental disorder, what criteria would have to be fulfilled?
That's not really what I asked. I understand there is considerable religious motivation against labeling homosexual behavior as "normal."
But let's say I proposed it as a canidate for a mental disorder; I understand we are not assuming it to be as such by default. What criteria would have to be fulfilled to be considered a mental disorder? Or conversely, what criteria aren't fulfilled?
quote: Do you yet have any reason to claim psychology is not a science?.
The title of the thread is a bit of a misnomer at this point, and was at the beginning. It should have been titled "Is There An Objective Criteria For Mental Illness?"
Atleast, that is the direction I want to steer it in now. Also understand I'm not necessarily taking a hostile attitude toward the idea of mental illness. I simply want to understand it.
But let's say I proposed it as a canidate for a mental disorder; I understand we are not assuming it to be as such by default. What criteria would have to be fulfilled to be considered a mental disorder?
Well, the following resolution was produced by the APA:
Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities
The only homosexuals that were investigated before this, were insane homosexuals so the fallacious link was made that homosexuality is a mental illness. Your criteria then are that you need to be able to demonstrate an impairment in judgement/stability/reliability/social skills/vocational skills. In short - you have to show that they are impaired in some mental fashion.