28543941 dsm-iv-tr


Published on


Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

28543941 dsm-iv-tr

  1. 1. ~- , : .. - -. - ·=- -~ : - • - • - - • - • . - - •- - DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS FOURTH EDITION TEXT REVISION TM - - 184 4 _- . . . _-_· - ----· -. . . Published by the American Psychiatric Association Washington, DC-
  2. 2. Copyright© 2000 American Psychiatric AssociationDSM, DSM-IV, and DSM-IV-TR are trademarks of the American Psychiatric Association. Useof these terms is prohibited without permission of the American Psychiatric Association.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Unless authorized in writing by the APA, no part of this book maybe reproduced or used in a manner inconsistent with the AP As copyright. This prohibition ap-plies to unauthorized uses or reprod1,1 ctions in any fom1, including electronic applications.Correspondence regarding copyright permissions should be directed to the DSM Permissions,Office of Publishing Operations, American Psychiatric Association, 1400 K Street, N.W., Wash-ington, DC 20005.Manufactured in the United States of America on acid-free paper.American Psychiatric Association1400 K Street, N.N., Washington, DC 20005www.psych.orgThe correct citation for this book is American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and SialisticnlM.n1mal of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC, American Psychi-atric Association, 2000.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataDiagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder5 : OSM-IV.~th ed., text revision. p. ; em. Prepared by the Task Force on OSM-IV and other committees and work groups of the Amer-ican Psychiatric Association. Includes index. IS B1 0-89042-02+6 (casebound: a1k. paper}-ISB1 0-89042-025--! (pbk : alk. paper) l. Mental illness-Classification-Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Mental illness-Diagnosis-H andbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title: DSM-IV. IT. American Psycltiatric Association. ill. AmericanPsychiatric Association. Task Force on DSM-IV. [DNLM: 1. Mental Disorders-classification. 2.. Mental Disorders-diagnosis.VM 15 D536 2000}RC!55.2..C! D536 2000616.89075--dc21 00-024852British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA ClP record is available from the British library.Text Design- Anne BarnesManufacturing-R. R. Oonnelley & Sons Company
  3. 3. Contents -Task Force on DSM-IV .. .. ............................. ... xiWork Groups for the DSM-IV-TR Text Revision ............ .. . xvAcknowledgments for DSM-IV-TR ..... .... ................ xixAcknowledgments forDSM-IV Text Revision ... .. .............. . ............. .. xxi . ...Introd UctiOn . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. XXIIICautionary Statement .. .......... .................... xxxviiUse of the Manual ... .... . ......................... . ..... 1DSM-IV-TR Classification ................................. 13Multiaxial Assessment ..................... . ... .. . . . ..... 27Disorders Usually First Diagnosed inInfancy, Childhood, or Adolescence . ................ . .... .. 39Delirium, Dementia, and Amnestic andOther Cognitive Disorders ...... .... .... .... ............. 135Mental Disorders Due to a General Medical Condition .. . ..... 181Substance-Related Disorders .............. , . . ...... .. .... 191Schizophrenia andOther Psychotic Disorders . ......... ..... .. .............. 297Mood Disorders .... .. ............................. .. .. 345Anxiety Disorders . .. .. ...................... . ..... .. ... 429Somatoform Disorders ........ . ........... . ....... . .. . . .485Factitious Disorders ..... ... ......... . .......... .. . . .... 513Dissociative Disorders .. . ...... ...... ............. ... .... 519Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders . ...... ..... .. ........ 535
  4. 4. --- Eating Disorders ............. ..... ......... .......... .. 583 Sleep Disorders . . ... .......... .. . .. . ................... 597 Impulse-Control Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified ..... . ... . 663 Adjustment Disorders ..................... .......... ... 679 Personality Disorders .......... ............. .. ... . . . . . .. 685 Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention ...... ............. . .......... 731 Additional Codes ................... ..... ......... ..... 743 Appendix A Decision Trees for Differential Diagnosis ......... ... ....... 745 Appendix B Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study .. . ......... 759 Appendix C Glossary of Technica l Terms ....... ... . .............. . ... . 819 Appendix D High lights of Changes in DSM-IV Text Revision ................................ ... 829 Appendix E Alphabetical Listing of DSM-IV-TR Diagnoses and Codes ......................... 845 Appendix F Numerical Listing of DSM-IV-TR Diagnoses and Codes ..... . ...... ........ . . ... 857 Appendix G ICD-9-CM Codes for Selected General Medical ·- Conditions and Medication-Induced Disorders . ............. 867
  5. 5. Appendix HDSM-IV Classificatio n(With ICD- 10 Codes) ....................................883 -Appendix IOutline for Cultural Formu lation andGlossary of Culture-Bound Syndr omes ...... .. ... . .. ...... . 897Appendix JDSM-IV Contributors ..................... ... . ..... . .. .. 905Appendix KDSM-IV Text Revision Advisers .. . .. . . ..................... 929Index ........ . ........................ .... . . ........ . 933
  6. 6. TASK FORCE ON DSM -IV ALLEN FRANCES, M.D. Clzairpers011 HAROLD ALAN PINCUS, M .D. Vice-Chairperson MICHAEL B. FIRsT, M .D. Editor, Text and CriteriaN ancy Coover Andreasen, M.D., Ph.D. Chester W. Schmidt, M.D.David H. Barlow, Ph.D. Marc Alan Schuckit, M.D.Magda Campbell, M.D. David Shaffer, M.D.Dennis P. Canhve11, MD. Robert L. Spitzer, M.D.Ellen Frank, Ph.D. Special AdviserJudith H. Gold, M.D. Gary J. Tucker, M.D.John Gunderson, M.D. B. Timothy Walsh, M.D.Robert E. Hales, M.D. Thomas A. Widiger, Ph.D.Kenneth S. Kendler, M.D. Research Coordinator Janet B. W. Williams, D.S.W.David J. Kupfer, M.D. Jolm C. Urbaitis, M.D.Michael R. Liebowitz, M.D. Assembly LiaisonJuan Eruique Mezzich, M.D., Ph.D. James J. Hudziak, M.D.Peter E. N athan, Ph.D. Reside11t Fellow (199G-1993)Roger Peele, M.D. Junius Gonzales, M.D.Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H. Resident Fellow (1988-1990)A. Jolm.Rush, M.D. Ruth Ross, M.A. Scie11ce Editor N ancy E. Vettorello, M.U.P. Administrative Coordinator .._ Wendy Wakefield DaYis, Ed.M. Editorial Coordinator Cindy D . Jones Admi11istrntive Assistant N ancy Sydnor-Greenberg, M.A. Administmtive Consultmzt Myriam Kline, M.S. Focused Field-Trial Coordinator James W. Thompson, M.D., M.P.H. Videotape Field-Trial CoordinatorThe DSM-IV Text Reision Work Groups are listed on pp. xv-.wii. • XI
  7. 7. •• XII DSM-IV Work Groups Anxiety Disorders Work Group Michae l R. Liebowitz, M.D. James C. Ballenger, M.D. Chn irpers011 Jonathan Davidson, M .D. David H. BarlOv, Ph.D. Edna Foa, Ph.D. Vice· Chn irperson Abby Fyer, M.D . Delirium, Dementia, and Amnestic and Other Cognitive Disorders Work Group Gary J. Tucker, M.D. Marshall Folstein, M.D. Clmirperson Gary Lloyd Gottlieb, M.D. Michae l Popkin, M.D. Igor Grant, LD. Vice-Chnirperso11 Benjamin Liptzin, M.D. Eric Douglas Caine, M .D. Disorders Usually First Diagnosed During Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence Work Group David Shaffer, M .D . Rachel Klein, Ph.D. Co-Cimirpersou Benjamin Lahey, Ph.D. Magda Campbell, M .D. Rolf Loeb e r, Ph.D. Co-Cimi1111?TSOII Jeffrey Newcom, M.D. Susan J. Bradley, M .D. Rhea Paul, Ph.D. Dennis P. Cantwell, M.D. Judith H. L. Rapoport, M .D. Gabrielle A. Carls on, M.D. Sir Michael Rutter, M.D. Donald Jay Cohen, M .D. Fred Volkmar, M.D. Barry Garfinkel, M.D.• JohnS. Werry, M.D . Eating Disorders Work Group B. Timotl1y Walsh, M.D. Katherine A. Halmi, M.D. Clinirperso11 James Mitchell, lvl.D. Paul Garfinkel, M .D. G. Terence Wilson, Ph.D. Mood Disorders Work Group A. John Rush, M.D. David Dunner, M.D. Chairperson Ellen Frank, Ph.D. Martin B. Keller, M.D. Donald F. Klein, M.D. Vice-Ciwirperso11 Mark S. Bauer, lvLD. .,
  8. 8. DSM-IV Work Groups xiii I Multiaxial Issues Work GroupJanet B. W. Williams, D.S.W. Juan Enrique Mezzich, M .D.APh.D : Chairperson Roger Peele, M.D.Howard H. Goldman, M.D., Ph.D. Stephen Setterberg, M.D. Vice-Chnirpersoil Andrew Edward Skodol IT, M.D.Alan M. Gruenberg, M.D. Personality Disorders Work GroupJolm Gunderson, M.D. Theodore Millon, Ph .D. Chairperson Bruce Pfohl, M.D.Robert M.A. Hirschfeld, M.D. Tracie Shea, Ph.D. Vice-Clznirperson Larry Siever, M.D.Roger Blashfield, Ph.D. Thomas A. Widiger, Ph.D.Susan Jean Fiester, M .D. -.. Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder Work GroupJudith H. Gold, M.D. Sally Severino, MD. Chairperson N ada Logan Stotland, M.D.Jean Endicott, Ph.D. Ellen Frank, Ph.D.Barbara Parry, M.D. Cons11ltant Psychiatric Systems Interface Disorders (Adjustment, Dissociative, Factitious, Impulse-Contro l, and Somatoform Disorders and Psycholo gica l Factors Affecting Medical Conditions) Work GroupRobert E. Hales, fvLD. Steven A. King, M.D. Chairperson Ronald L. Martin, M.D.C. Robert Cloninger, M.D. Kathaxine Anne Phillips, M.D. Vice-Chairperson David A. Spiegel, M.D.Jona than F. Borus, M.D. Alan Stoudemire, M.D.Jack Denning Burke, Jr., M.D., M.P.H. James J. Strain, M.D.Joe P. Fagan, M.D. Michael G. Wise, MD. Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders Work GroupN ancy Coover Andreasen, M.D., Ph.D. Samuel Keith, M.D. Chairperson Kenneth S. Kendler, M.D.John M. Kane, MD. Thomas M cGlashan, M.D. V ice-Cizn irperson
  9. 9. •XIV DSM-IV Work Groups Sexual Disorders Work GroupChester W . Schmidt, M.D. Leslie Schover, Ph.D. Chairperson Taylor Seagraves, M .D.Rau] Schiavi, M.D. Thomas N athan W ise, M.D. Sleep Disorders Work GroupDavid J. Kupfer, M.D. Roger Peele, M.D. Chairperson Quentin Regestein, M.D.Charles F . Reynolds III, M .D. Michael Sateia, M.D. Vice-Cl111i rperson Michael Thorpy, M.D .Daniel Buysse, M.D. Substance-Related Disorders Work GroupMarc Alan Schuckit, M.D . Linda B. Cottier, Ph.D. Chairperson Thomas Crm,.rley, M.D.John E. Helzer, M.D. Peter E. N athan, Ph.D. Vice-Chairperson George E. Woody, M.D. Committee on Psychiatric Diagnosis and AssessmentLayton McCurdy, M.D. Jerry M. Lewis, M.D. Chairperson (1987- 1994) Consultant (1988-1994)Kenneth Z. Altshuler, M .D. (1987-1992) Daniel J. Luc.hin.s, M.D.Thomas F. Anders, M.D. (1988-1994) Consultant (1987-1991)Susan Jane Blumenthal, M.D. (1990- Katharine Anne Phillips, M .D. 1993) Con51tltant (1992- 1994)Leah Joan Dickstein, M .D. (1988-1991 ) Cynthia Pearl Rose, M .D. Consultant (1990-1994)Lewis J. Judd, M .D. (1988-1994) Louis Alan Moench, M.D.Gerald L. Klerman, M .D. (deceased) Assembly Liaison (1991- 1994) (1988-1991) Steven K. Dobscha, M.D.Stuart C. Yudofsky, M .D. (1992- 1994) Resident Fellow (1990-1992)Jack D. Blaine, M .D. Mark Zimmerman, M.D . Consultant (1987-1992) Resident Fellow (1992-1994) Joint Committee of the Board of Trustees and Assembly of District Branches on Issues Related to DSM-IVRonald A. Shello" , M.D. Leah Joan Dickstein, M .D. Chairperson -..... Arthur John Farley, M.D.Harvey Bluestone, M.D. Carol A nn Bernstein, M.D.
  10. 10. 1 WORK GROUPS FOR THE DSM-IV TEXT REVISION J1ICHAEL B. FIRsT, M .D. Co-Chairperson and Editor H AROLD ALA!J P INCUS, M.D. Co-ClwirpersonLaurie E. McQueen, M.S.S.W. Yoshie Satake, B.A. DSM Project Manager DSM Program Coordi11ator Anxiety Disorders Text Revision Work GroupMunay B. Stein, M.D. M ichelle Cra.ske, Ph.D. Chairperso11 Edna Foa, Ph.D.Jonathan Abrammvitz, Ph.D. Thomas M ellman, M.D.Gordon Asmundson, Ph.D. Ron N orton, Ph.D.Jean C. Beckham, Ph.D. Franktin Schneier, M.D.Timothy Brown, Ph.D., Psy.D. Richard Zinbarg, Ph.D. Delirium, Dementia, and Amnestic and Other Cognitive Disorders and Mental Disorders Due to a General Medical Condition Text Revision Work GroupEric Douglas Caine, M.D. Jesse Fann, M.D., M.P.H. Disorders Usually First Diagnosed During Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence Text Revision Work GroupDavid Shaffer, M.D. Ami Klin, Ph.D. Chairperson Daniei Pine, M.D.Donald J. Cohen, M.D. Mark A Riddle, M.D.Stephen Hinshaw, Ph.D. Fred R. Volkmar, M.D.Rachel G. Klein, Ph.D. Charles Zeanah, M.D. " Eating Disorders Text Revision Work GroupKatharine L. Loeb, Ph.D. B. Timothy Walsh, M.D. Medication-Ind uced Movement Disorders Text Revision Work GroupGerard Addonizio, M.D. Alan Gelenberg, M.D.Lenard Adler, M.D. James Jefferson, M .D.Burton Angrist, M.D. Dilip Jeste, M.D .Daniel Casey, M.D. Peter Weiden, M.D. XV
  11. 11. Ixvi DSM-IV-TR Work Groups Mood Disorders Text Revision Work Group MarkS. Bauer, M.D. Michael E. Thase, M .D. Patricia Suppes, M.D., Ph.D. Multiaxial Text Revision Work Group Alan M. Gruenberg, M.D. Personality Disorders Text Revision Work Group Bruce Pfohl, M.D. Thomas A Wicliger, Ph.D. Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder Text Revision Work Group Sally Severino, M.D. Psychiatric System Interface Disorders (Adjustment, Dissociative, Factitious, Impulse-Control, and Somatoform Disorders and Psychological Factors Affecting Medical Conditions) Text Revision Work Group Mitchell Cohen, M.D. Russell Noyes, Jr., M.D. Marc Feldman, M.D. Katharine Anne Phillips. M.D. Eric HolJander, M.D. Eyal Shemesh, M.D. Steven A. King, M.D . David A Spiegel, M.D. James Levenson, M.D. James J. Strain, M.D. Ronald L Martin, M.D. (deceased) Sean H. Yutzy, M.D. Jeffrey Iewcom , M.D. Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders Text Revision Work Group Michael Flaum, M.D. Xavier Amador, Ph.D. Chairperson Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Text Revision W ork Group Chester W. Schnudt, M.D. Thomas Nathan Wise, M.D. R. Taylor Segraves, M.D. Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D. Sleep Disorders Text Revision Work Group Daniel Buysse, M.D. Peter Nowell, M .D. Substance-Related Disorders Text Revision Work Group Marc Alan Schuckit, M.D .
  12. 12. DSM-IV-TR Work Groups xvii I American Psychiatric Association Committee on Psychiatric Diagnosis and AssessmentDavid J. Kupfer, M.D. Louis Alan Moench, M.D. Chair Assembly LiaisonJames Leckman, M.D. Jack Barchas, lvLD. Member Corresponding MemberKatharine Anne Phillips, M.D . Herbert W. Harris, M.D., Ph.D. Member Corresponding MemberA. John Rush, M .D. Charles Kaelber, M.D. Member Corresponding MemberDaniel Winstead, M.D. Jorge A. Cos ta e Silva, M.D. Member Corresponding MemberBonnie Zima, M.D., Ph.D. T. Bedirhan Ustun, M.D. Member Corresp01zding lviemberBarbara Kennedy, M.D., Ph.D. Yeshuschandra Dhaibar, M.D. Co nsulta11 t APA/Glaxo-Wellcome FellowJanet B. W. Williams, D .S.W. Consultant
  13. 13. Acknowledgments for DSM-IVD SM-IV was a team effort. More than 1,000 people (and numerous professionalorganizations) have helped us in the preparation of this document. Members of theTask Force on DSM-IV and DSM-IV Staff are listed on p. xi, members of the DSM-IVWork Groups are listed on pp. ).:ii-xiv, and a list of other participants is included inAppendix J. The major responsibility for the content of DSM-IV rests with the Task Force onDSM-N and members of the DSM-IV Work Groups. They have worked (often muchharder than they bargained for) with a dedication and good cheer that has been inspi-rational to us. Bob Spitzer has our special thanks for his untiring efforts and unique per-spective. Norman Sartorius, Darrel Regier, Lewis Judd, Fred Good·win, and ChuckKaelber were instrumental in facilitating a mutually productive interchange betweenthe American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization that hasimproved both DSM-N and ICD-10, and increased their compatibility . We are grate-ful to Robert Israel, Sue Meads, and Amy Blum at the N ational Center for HealthStatistics and Andrea Albaum-Feinstein at the American Health Infom1ation Man-agement Association for suggestions on the DSM-IV coding system. Denis Prager,Peter Nathan, and David KupfeT helped us to develop a novel data reanalysis s trate-gy that has been supported with funding from the John D. and Catherine T. Mac-Arthur Foundation. Many individuals within the American Psychiatric Association deserve recogni-tion. Mel Sabshins special wisdom and grace made even the most tedious tasks seemworth doing. The American Psychiatric Association Committee on Psychiatric Diag-nosis and Assessment (chaired by Lay ton McCurdy) provided valuable direction andcotmsel. We would also like to thank the American Psychiatric Association Presidents(Drs. Fink, Pardes, Benedek, Hartmann, English, and Mcintyre) and Assembly Speak-ers (Drs. Cohen, Flamm, Hanin, Pfaehler, and SheUow)....vho helped with the planningof our w ork Carolyn RobinO·vitz and Jack White, and their respective staffs in theAmerican Psychiahic Association Medical Directors Office and the Business Admin-istration Office, have provided valuable assistance in the organization of the project. Several other individuals have our special gratitude. Wendy Davis, Nancy Vet-torello, and Nancy Sydnor-Greenberg developed and implemented an organizationalstructure that has kept this complex project from spinning out of control. We havealso been blessed vvith an unusually able administrative s taff, "hich has includedElisabeth Fitzhugh, thl.la Hall, Kelly McKinney, Gloria itliele, Helen Stayna, SarahTilly, N ina Rosenthal, Susan Mann, Joanne M as, and, especially, Cindy Jones. RuthRoss, our tireless Science Editor, has been responsible for improving the cla1ity of ex-pression and organization of DSM-IV. Myriam Kline (Researd1 Coordinator for theNIH-funded DSM-IV Focused Field TriaJs), Jim Thompson (Research Coordinator for • XIX
  14. 14. • XX Acknowledgments for DSM-IV the MacArthur Foundation-funded Videotape Field Trial), and Sandy Ferris (Assis- tant Director for the Office of Research) have made many valuable contributions. We would also like to acknowledge all the other staff persons at the American Psychiatric Association who have helped with this project. Ron Mc.MHlen, Claire Reinburg, Pam Harley, and Jane Davenport of American Psychiatric Press h ave provided expert pro- duction assistance. Allen Frances, M.D. Cllairpersoll, Task Force 011 DSM-IV Harold Alan Pincus, M.D. Vice-Chairperson, Task Force 011 DSM-TV Michael B. First_ M.D. Editor, DSlvf-W Text nud Criteria TI·10mas A. Widiger, Ph.D. Research Coordinator
  15. 15. Acknowledgments for DSM-IV Text Revision The effort to revise the DSM-N text was also a team effort. We are especially in- debted to the tireless efforts of the DSM-N Text Revision Work Groups (listed on pp. XV- xvii), who did the lions share of the work in the preparation of this revision. We w ouJd also like to acknm·vledge the contribution of the various advisers to the Work Groups (see Appendix K, p . 929), w ho provided their perspective on w hether the proposed changes were justified. Finally, we wouJd like to thank the American Psychiatric Associations Committee on Psychia h;c Diagnosis and Assessment (listed on p . xvii), wh o provided helpful guidance and oversight during the p rocess as ·well as approval of the final document. Special gratitude goes to committee members Katharine A. Phillips and Janet B. W. Williams, for their meticulously carefuJ review of the text revision. OJ course, none of Ulis could have happened without the invalu- able organizational and administrative assistance provided by the DSM-IV staff, 1.-aurie McQueen and Yoshie Satake, and production assistance provided by Anne Barnes, Pam Harley, Greg Kuny, Claire Reinbmg, and Ron McMillen at Amer ican Psychiatric Press. Michael B. First, M.D. Co-Cimirperson n11d Editor Harold Alan Pincus, M.D. Co-Clznirpersou • XXI•
  16. 16. Introduction his is the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic andStatistical Mmwal of Mental Disorders, or DS1vl-IV. The utility and credibility of DSM-IVrequire that it focus on its dinical, reseru·ch, and edu cational purposes and be support·ed by an extensive empirical foundation. Our highest priority has been to provide ahelpful guide to clinical practice. We h oped to make DSM-IV p ractical and useful forclinician s by striving for brevity of criteria sets, clarity of language, and explicit state-ments of the constructs ernbodjed in the diagnostic criteria. An additional goal was tofacilitate research and improve communication among clinicians and researchers. Wewere also mindful of the use of DSM-IV for improving the collection of clinical infor-mation and as an educational tool for teaching p sychopathology. An official nomenclature must be applicable in a wide diversity of contexts. DSM-IVis used by clinicians and researchers of many different orientations (e.g., biological,psychod)marnic, cognitive, behavioral, interpersonal, family/ systems). It is used bypsychiatrists, other physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational andrehabilitation therapists, counselors, and other h ealth and mental health profession-als. DSM-IV mus t be usable across settings-inpatient, outpatient, partial hospital,consultation-liaison, clinic, private practice, and primary care, and with communitypopulations. It is also a necessary tool for collecting and commwucating accuratepublic health s tatistics. Fortunately, all these m any uses are compatible with oneanother. n, DSM-lV was the product of 13 Work Groups (see Appendix each of which hadprimary responsibility for a section of the manual Tllis organization was designed toincrease participation by experts in each of the respective fields. We took a number ofprecautions to ensure that the vVork Group recommendations would reflect thebreadth of available evidence and opinion and n ot just the views of the specific mem-bers. After e-xtensive consultations with experts and clliticians in eacl1 field, we select-ed Work Group members who represented a wide range of perspectives andexperiences. -fork Group members were instructed that they were to participate asconsensus scholars and not as advocates of previously held vie~ws . Furthermore, weestablished a formal evidence-based process for the Work Groups to fo11ow. The Work Groups reported to the Task Force on DSM-IV (see p. xi), which consist-ed of 27 members, many of vhom also cl1aired a Work Group. Each of the 13 vVorkGroups was composed of 5 (or more) members whose reviews were critiqued bybetween 50 and 100 advisers, who vvere also cl10sen to represent diverse clinical andresearch expertise, disciplines, backgrounds, and settings. The involvement of manyinternational experts ensured that DSM-JV had ava.i lable the widest pool of informa- tion and would be applicable across cultures. Conferences and workshops were held to provide conceptual and methodological guidance for the DSM-IV effort. These -·· XXIII
  17. 17. Ixxiv Introductionincluded a number of consultations between the developers of DSM-IV and the de-velopers of ICD-10 conducted for the purpose of increasing compatibility betweenthe two systems. Also held were methods conferences that focused on culrural factorsin the diagnosis of mental disorder, on geriatric diagnosis, and on psychiatric diag-nos is in primary care settings. To maintain open and extensive lines of communication, the Task Force on DSM-IVestablished a liaison with many other components within the American PsycluatricAssociation and with more than 60 organizations and associations interested in thedevelopment of DSM-IV (e.g., American Health Information Management Associa-tion, American Nurses Association, Am.erican Occupational Therapy Association,American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Ameri-can Psychological Society, Coalition for the Family, Group for the Advancement ofPsycl1iatry, N ational Association of Social Workers, National Center for H ealth Sta-tistics, World Health Organization ). We attempted to air issues and empirical evi-dence early in the process in order to identify potential problems and differences ininterpretation. Excl1anges of information were also made poss ible through the distri-bution of a semiannual n ewsletter (the DSM-IV Update), the publication of a regularcolumn on DSM-IV in Hospital a11d ConummihJ PSljchiatn;, frequent presentations atnational and intemational conferences, and numerous journal articles. Two years before the publication of DSM-IV, the Tas k Force published and wi delydistributed the DSM-W Oplious Book. This volume presented a comprehensive sum-mary of the alternative proposals that were being considered for inclusion in DSM-IVin order to solicit opinion and additional data for our deliberations. W e received ex-te ns ive correspondence from interested individuals who shared v.rith us additionaldata and recommendations on the potential impact of the possible changes in DSM-fVon their clinical practice, teaching, research, and administrative work. Tlus breadth ofdiscussion helped us to anticipate problems and to attempt to find the best solutionamong the various options. One year before the publication of DSNf-IV, a near-finaldraft of the proposed criteria sets was distributed to allow for one last critique. In arriving at final DSM-IV decisions, the Work Groups and the Task Force re-viewed all of the extensive empirical evidence and correspondence that had beengathered. It is our belief that the major innovation ofDSM-IV lies not in any of its spe-cific content changes but rather in the systematic and explicit process b y wlucl1. it wasconstructed and documented. More than any oth er nomenclature of mental disor-ders, DSM-IV is grounded in empirical evidence. Historical Background The need for a classification of mental disorders has been clear throughout the history of medicine, but there has been little agreement on which disorders should be includ- ed and the optimal method for their organization. The many nomenclahlres that have been developed during the past hvo millennia have differed in their relative empha- sis on phenomenology, etiology, and course as defining features. Some systems h ave included only a handful of diagnostic categories; o thers have included thousands. Moreover, the various systems for categorizin g mental disorders have differed with respect to whether their principle objective vas for use in clinical, research, or statis- tical settings. Because the history of classification is too extensive to be summarized
  18. 18. Introduction .xxix Ifourth volume contains reports of the data reanalyses, reports of the field trials, anda final executive summary of the rationale for the decisions made by each. WorkGroup. Tn addition, many papers were stimulated by the efforts toward empiricald ocumentation in DSM-N, and these have been published in peer-reriewed journals. Relation to ICD-10Tile tenth revision of the l11tematio11al Statistical Classiftcntioll of Diseases and RelatedHealth Problems (ICD-10), developed by WHO, was published in 1992. A clinical mod-ification of ICD-10 (ICD-10-CM) is expected to be implemented in the United Statesin 2004. Those preparing [CO-l 0 and DSM-IV have worked closely to coordinate theirefforts, res ulting in much mutual influence. ICD-10 consists of an official coding sys-tem and other related clinical and research documents and ins truments. The codesand terms provided in DSM-N are fully compatible w ith both ICD-9-CM and ICD-10(see Appendix H). The clinical and research drafts of ICD-10 were thoroughly re-v iewed by the DSNf-N Work Groups and suggested important topics for DSM-IV lit-erature reviews and data reanalyses. Draft versions of the ICD-10 Diagnostic Criteriafor Research were included as alternatives to be compared with DSM-ID, DSM-ill-R,and suggested DSM-IV criteria sets in the DSM-IV field trials. The many consul-tations behveen the developers of DSM-IV and ICD-10 (which were facilitated byNIMH, NIDA, and NIAAA) were enormously useful in increasing the congruenceand reducing meaningless differences in wording between the hvo systems. The DSM-IV Text RevisionOne of the m ost important uses of DSM-IV has been as an educational tool. This isespecially true of the descriptive text that accompanies the criteria sets for DSM-IVdisorders. Given that the interval beheen DSM-IV and DSM-V is being extendedrelative to the intervals behveen earlier editions (from 7 years beh,•een DSM-ill andDSM-ill-R and behveen DSM-ill-R and DSM-IV, to at least 12 years), the infom1ationin the text (which was prepared on the basis of literature dating up to 1992) runs therisk of becoming inueasingly out-of-pace -.. -.rith the large volume of research pub-lis hed eadl year. In order to bridge the span between DSM-IV and DSM-V, a revisionof the DSM-IV text was undertaken. The goals of this text revision were severalfold:1) to correct any factual errors that were identified in the DSM-IV text; 2) to reviewthe DSM-IV text to ensure that all of the information is still up-to-date; 3) to makechanges to the DSM-IV text to reflect new information a·ailable since the DSM-IV lit-erature reviews ·were completed in 1992; 4) to make improve:men ts that will enhancethe educational v alue of DSM-IV; and 5) to update those ICD-9-CM codes that werechanged since the DSM-IV 1996 Coding Update. As with the original DSM-IV, allchanges proposed for the text had to be supported by empirical data. Furthermore,all proposed changes vere limited to the text sections (e.g., Associated Features andDisorders, Prevalence). No s ubs tantive changes in the criteria sets were considered,nor were any proposals entertained for new disorders, new s ubtypes, or changes inthe statu s of the DSM-IV appendix categories. The text revision process began in 1997 with the appoinbnent of DSM-IV Text Re-vision Work Groups, correspon ding to the original DSM-IV Work Group structure.
  19. 19. Introduction XXV Ihere, v,re focus briefly only on those aspects that have led directly to the developmentof the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Me11tal Disorders (DSM) and to the "MentalDisorders" sections in the various editions of the International Classification of Diseases(ICD). In the United States, the initial impetus for developing a classification of mentaldisorders ·w as the need to collect statistical infom1ati.on. What might be consideredthe first official attempt to gather infom1ation about mental illness in the UnitedStates was the recording of the frequency of one category- "idiocy/ insanity" in the1840 census. By the 1880 census, seven categories of mental illness w ere distin-guished- mania, melancholia, monomania, paresis, dementia, dipsomania, and epi-lepsy. In 1917, the Committee on Statistics of the American Psychiatric Association(at that time called the American Medico-Psychological Association [the name waschanged in 1921]), together with the National Commission on Mental H ygiene, for-mulated a plan that was adopted by the Bureau of the Censu s for gathering wliformstatistics across mental hospitals. Although this system devoted more attention toclinical utility than did previous systems, it was still primarily a statistical classifica-tion. The American Psychiatric Association subsequently collaborated with the NewYork Academy of Medicine to develop a nationally acceptable psychiatric nomen-clature that vould be incorporated within the first edition of the American MedicalAssociations Standard Classified Nomenclature of Disease. This nomenclature wasdesigned primarily for diagnosing inpatients w ith severe psychiatric and neurologi-cal d isorders. A much broader nomenclature was later developed by the U.S. Army (and modi-fied b y the Veterans Administration) in order to better incorporate the outpatient pre-sentations of World War II servicemen and veterans (e.g., psychophysiological,personality, and acute disorders). Contemporaneously, the World Health Organi-zation (WHO) published the sixth edition of ICD, which, for the first time, includeda section for mental disorders. ICD-6 ·was heavily influenced by the Veterans Admin-istration nomenclature and included 10 categories for psychoses, 9 for psychoneuro-ses, and 7 for disorders of character, behavior, and inteljjgence. The American Psychiatric Association Committee on -omenclature and Statisticsdeveloped a variant of the ICD-6 that was published in 1952 as the first edition of theDing11ostic a11d Statistical Manual: Mental Disorders (DSM-I). DSM-I contained a glossa-ry of descriptions of the diagnostic categories and was the first official manual ofmental disorders to focus on clinical utility. The use of the term reaction throughoutDSM-1 reflected the influence of Adolf Meyers psychobiological view that mentaldisorders represented reactions of the personality to psychological, social, and bio-logical factors. In part because of the lack of · idespread acceptance of the mental disorder taxon- womy contained in ICD-6 and ICD-7, WHO sponsored a comprehensive review ofdiagnostic issues that was conducted by the British psychiahist StengeL His reportcan be credited with having inspired many of the recent advances in diagnostic meth-odology- most especially the need for ex-plicit definitions as a means of promotingreliable clinical diagnoses. However, the next round of diagnostic revision, whid1ledto DSM-ll and ICD-8, did not follow Stengels recommendations to any great degree.DSM-ll v.ras similar to DSM-I but eliminated the term t·eaction. As had been the case for DSM-I and DSM-IT, the development of DSlvl-III was co-
  20. 20. Ixxvi Introdu ctionordinated with the development of the next (ninth) version of ICD, which was pub-lished in 1975 and implemented in 1978. Work began on DSM-III in 1974, withpublication in 1980. DSM-III introduced a number of important methodological inno-vations, including explicit diagnostic criteria, a multiaxial system, and a descriptiveapproach that attempted to be neutral with respect to theories of etiology. This effortwas facilitated by the extensive empirical v.rork then under way on the constructionand validation of explicit diagnostic criteria and the development of semistructuredinten~iews. ICD-9 did not include diagnostic criteria or a multiaxial system largelybecause the primary function of this intemational system was to delineate categoriesto facilitate the collection of basic health statistics. In contrast, DSlvl-III was developedwith the additional goal of providing a medical nomenclature for clinicians andre-seardlers. Because of dissatisfaction across all of medicine with the lack of specificityin ICD-9, a decision was made to modify it for use in the United States, resulting inICD-9-CM (for Clinical Modification). Experience with DSM-ill revealed a number of inconsistencies in the system and anumber of instances in which the criteria were not entirely clear. Therefore, the Amer-ican Psychiatric Association appointed a Work Group to Revise DSM-III, which de-veloped the revisions and corrections that led to the publication of DSM-III-R in 1987. The DSM-IV Revision ProcessThe third edition of the Diagnostic and Stntisticallvimwal of Mental Disorders (DSM-III)represented a major advance in the diagnosis of mental disorders and greatly faci1i-tated empirical research. The development of DSM-IV has benefited from the s ub-stantial increase in the research on diagnosis that was generated in part by DSM-IIIand DSM-III-R. Most diagnoses now have an empirical literature or available datasets that are relevant to decisions regarding the revision of the diagnostic manual.The Task Force on DSM-IV and its Work Groups conducted a three-stage empiricalprocess that included 1) comprehensive and systematic reviews of the published lit-erature, 2) reanalyses of already-collected data sets, and 3) extensive issue-focusedfield tria Is. Literature ReviewsTwo methods conferences were sponsored to articulate for all the Work Groups a sys-tematic procedure for finding, extracting, aggregating, and interpreting data in acomprehensive and objective fashion. The initial tasks of each of the DSM-IV WorkGroups were to identify the most pertinent issues regarding each diagnosis and to de-termine the kinds of empirical data relevant to their resolution. A Work Group mem-ber or adviser was then assigned the responsibility of conducting a systematic andcomprehensive review of tl1e relevant literature that would inform the resolution ofthe issue and also document the text of DSM-IV. The domains considered in makingdecisions included clinical utility, reliability, descriptive validity, psychometric per- formance characteristics of individual criteria, and a number of validating variables. Eadlliterature review specified 1) the issues or aspects of the text and criteria un- der consideration and the significance of the issues "~th respect to DSM-IV; 2) there- view method (including the sources for identifying rele,·ant studies, the number of
  21. 21. Introd uction xxvii studies considered, the criteria for inclu sion and exclusion from the review, and thevariables catalogued in each study); 3) the results of the review (including a descrip-tive summary of the studies with respect to methodology, design, and substantivecorrelates of the findings, the relevant findings, and the analyses conducted on thesefindings); and 4) the various options for resolving the issue, the advantages and dis-advantages of each option, recommendations, and suggestions for additional re-search that would be needed to provide a more concJusive resolution. The goal of the DSM-IV literature reviews was to provide comprehensive and un-biased information and to ensure that DSM-IV reflects the best available cJinical andresearch literature. For this reason, we used systematic computer searches and criticalreviews done by large groups of advisers to ensure Hlat the literahue coverage -vasadequate and that the interpretation of the results was justified. Input was solicitedespecially from those persons likely to be critical of the conclusions of the review. ll1eliterature reviews were revised many times to produce as comprehensive and bal-anced a result as possible. It must be noted that for some issues addressed by theDSM-IV Work Groups, particularly those that were more conceptual in nature or forwhich there were insufficient data, a review of the empirical literature had limitedutility. Despite these limitations, the reviews were helpful in documenting the ratio-nale and empirical support for decisions made by the DS!vf-IV Work Groups.Data ReanalysesWhen a review of the literature revealed a lack of evidence (or conflicting evidence)for the resolution of an issue, we often made use of two additional resources-datareanalyses and field trials-to help in making final decisions. Analyses of relevantunpublished data sets were supported b y a grant to the American Psychiatric Asso-ciation from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation. Most of the -!0 datareanalyses performed for DSM-IV involved the collaboration of several investigatorsat different sites. These researchers jointly subjected their data to questions posed bythe Work Groups concerning the criteria included in DSM-ill-R or criteria that mightbe included in DSM-IV. Data reanalyses also made i t possible for Work Groupsto generate several criteria sets that were then tested in the DSM-IV field trials. Al-though, for the most part, the data sets used in the reanalyses had been coJJected aspart of epidemiological studies or treatment or other clinical studies, they were alsohighly relevant to the nosological questions facing the DSM-IV Work Groups.Field TrialsTwelve DSM-IV field trials were sponsored by the National Institute of MentalHealth (NThtlli) in collaboration with the Nationallnstitute on Drug Abuse ( ITDA)and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism {NIAAA). The field tri-als allowed the DSM-IV Work Groups to compare altemative options and to studythe possible impact of suggested changes. Field trials compared DSM-III, DSM-III-R,ICD-10, and proposed DSM-IV criteria sets in 5-10 different sites per field trial, v.•ithapproximately 100 subjects at each site. Diverse sites, with representative groups ofsubjects from a range of socioculhual and ethnic backgrounds, ·w ere selected to en-snre generaJizability of field-trial results and to test some of the most difficult ques-
  22. 22. I xxviii Introduction tions in differential ctiagnosis. The 12 field trials included more than 70 sites and evaluated more than 6,000 subjects. The field trials collected information on the reli- ability and performance cl1aracteristics of each criteria set as a whole, as ~well as of the specific items within each criteria set. The field trials also helped to bridge the bound- ary between clinical researcl1 and clinical practice by determining how well sugges- tions for change that are derived from clinical research findings apply in clinical practice. Criteria for Change Although it 1vas impossible to develop absolute and infallible criteria for when cl1anges should be made, there were some principles that guided om efforts. The threshold for making revisions in DSM-IV was set higher than that for DSM-ffi and DSM-ill-R. Deci- sions had to be substantiated by explicit statements of rationale and by the systematic re- view of relevant empirical data. To increase the practicality and clinical utility of DSM-IV, the criteria sets were simplified and clarified when this could be justified by empirical data. An attempt was made to strike an optimal balance in DSM-IV with respect to his- torical tradition (as embodied in DSM-ill and DSM-ID-R), compatibility with ICD-10, evidence from rev iews of the literature, analyses of unpublished data sets, results of field trials, and consensus of the field . Although the amount of evidence required to support changes >vas set at a high thresho1d, it necessarily varied across disorders because the empirical support for the decisions made in DSM-ID and DSM-ID-R also varied across disorders. Of comse, common sense was necessary, and major changes to solve minor problems required more evidence than minor changes to solve major problems. We received suggestions to include numerous new diagnoses in DSM-IV. The pro- ponents argued that the new diagnoses were necessary to improve the coverage of the system by including a group of individuals that vere undiagnosable in DSM-ill-R or diagnosable only under the . Jot Otherwise Specified rubric. We decided that, in general, n ew diagnoses should be included in the system only after research has es- tablished that they should be included rather than being included to s timulate that researcl1. However, diagnoses already included in ICD-10 were given somewhat more consideration than those that were being proposed fresh for DSM-IV. The in- creased marginal utility, clarity, and coveTage provided by each newly proposed di- agnosis had to be balanced against the cumulative cumbersomeness imposed on the vhole system, the paucity of en1pirical documentation, and the possible misdiagnosis or misuse that might result. No classification of mental disorders can have a sufficient number of specific categories to encompass every conceivable clinical presentation. The -ot Otherwise Specified categories are provided to cover the not infrequent pre- sentations that are at the boundary of specific categorical definitions. The DSM-/V Sourcebook Documentation has been the e...c:sential foundation of the DSM-IV process. The DSM-N Sourcebook, published in four volumes, is intended to provide a comprehensive and convenient reference record of the clinical and researd1 support for the v arious deci- sions reached by the Work Groups and the Task Force. The first three volumes of the Sourcebook contain condensed versions of the 150 DSM-IV literature reviews. The
  23. 23. lxxx IntroductionThe chairs of the original DSM-IV Work Groups were consulted first regarding thecomposition of these Text Revision Work Groups. Each Text Revision Work Groupwas given primary responsibility for updating a section of the DSM-IV text. This en-tailed reviewing the text carefully to identify errors or omissions and then conductinga systematic, comprehensive literature review that focused on relevant material thathas been published since 1992. Text Revision Work Group members then drafted pro-posed changes, which w ere accompanied by written justifications for the changesalon g with relevant references. During a series of conference caUs, the proposedchanges, justifications, and references ·were presented by a Text Revision WorkGroup member to other members of the Text Revision Work Group, who providedinput regarding whether the changes were justified on the basis of the supportingdocumentation. Once c.i?a.fts of the proposed changes were finalized by the Text Re-vision Work Groups, the changes were more widely disseminated to a group of sec-tion-specific advisers (consisting of the original DSM-IV Work Group memberssupplemented by additional consultants) for further comment and review. These ad-visers were also given the opporhmity to suggest additional changes if they couldprovide sufficient convincing evidence justifying inclusion in the text. After consid-eration of the adviser comments, final drafts of proposed changes were produced andsubmitted for final review and approval by the American Psychiatric AssociationsCommittee on Psychiatric Diagnosis and Assessment. Most of the proposed literature-based changes were in the Associated Featuresand Disorders (which includes Associated Laboratory Findings); Specific Culhue,Age, and Gender Features; Prevalence; Course; and Familial Pattern sections of thetext. For a number of disorders, the Differential Diagnosis section also was expandedto provide more comprehensive differentials. Appen dix D (seep. 829) provides anoverview of the changes included in this text revision. Definition of Mental Disorder Although this volume is titled the Diag11ostic and Statistical Mmmal of Mental Disorders, the term mental disorder unfortunately implies a distinction between "mental" dis- orders and "physical" disorders that is a reduction:istic anachronism of mind / body dualism. A compelling literahlle documents that there is much "ph ysical" in "men- tal" disorders and much "menta l" in "physical" disorders. TI1e problem raised by the term "mental" disorders has been much clearer than its solution, and, unfortunately, the term persists in the title of DSM-IV because we have not found an appropriate substitute. Moreover, although this manual provides a classification of mental disorders, it must be admitted that no definition adequately specifi.es precise boundaries for the concept of "me11tal disorder." The concept of m ental disorder, like many other con- cepts in medicine and science, lacks a consistent operational definition that covers all situations. All medical conditions are defined on various levels of abstraction- for example, stn1chllal pathology (e.g., ulcerative colitis), symptom presentation (e.g., migraine), deviance from a physiological norm (e.g., hypertension), and etiology (e.g., pneumococcal pnemnonia). Mental disorders have also been defined by a vari- ety of concepts (e.g., distress, dysfunction, dyscontrol, disadvantage, disability, in- flexibility, irrationality, syndromal pattern, etiology, and statistical deviation). Each
  24. 24. Introduction xxxi is a useful indicator for a mental disorder, but none is equivalent to the concept, anddillerent situations caJJ for dillerent definitions. Despite these caveats, the definition of mental disorder that was included in OSM-mand OSM-lll-R is presented here because it is as useful as any other available defini-tion and has helped to guide decisions regarding which conditions on the boundarybetween normality and pathology s hould be included in DSM-IV. In DSM-IV, each ofthe mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psy-chological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associatedv.rith present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., ilnpaim1ent in oneor more ilnportant areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suf-fering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syn-drome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctionedresponse to a particular event, for example, the d eath of a loved one. Vvhatever itsoriginal cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psycho-logical, or biological dysfunction in the individual. Neither deviant behavior (e.g., po-litical, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual andsodety are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunc-tion in the indh·i dual, as described above. A common misconception is that a classification of mental disorders classifies peo-ple, when actually what are being classified are disorders that people have. For thisreason, the text of DSM-IV (as did the text of DSM-ill-R) avoids the use of such ex-pressions as "a schizophrenic" or "an alcoholic" and instead uses the more accurate,but admittedly more cumbersome, "an individual with Schizophrenia" or "an indi-vidual with Alcohol Dependence." Issues in the Use of DSM-IVLimit ations of t he Categorica l Appro achDSM-N is a categorical classification that dirides mental disorders into types basedon criteria sets with defining features. This naming of categories is the traditionalmethod of organizing and transmitting information in ezeryday life and has been thefundamental approacl1 used mall systems of medical diagnosis. A categorical ap-proach to classification works best w hen all members of a diagnostic class are homo-geneous, when there are clear boundaries between classes, and when the differentclasses are mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, the limitations of the categorical classifi-cation system must be recognized. ln DSM-IV, there is no assumption that each category of mental disorder is a com-pletely discrete entity with absolute boundaries dividing it from other mental dis-orders or from no mental disorder. There is also no assumption that all individualsdesoibedas having the same mental disorder are alike in all important ways. The cli-nician using DSlvl-lV should therefore consider that mdividuals sharing a diagnosisare likely to be heterogeneous even in regard to the defining features of the diagnosisand that boundary cases will be difficult to diagnose in any but a probabilistic fash-ion. This outlook allows greater flexibility in the use of the system, encourages morespecific attention to boundary cases, and emphasizes the need to capture additional
  25. 25. Ixxxii Introd uctionclinical information that goes beyond ctiagnosis. In recognition of the heterogeneityof clinical presentations, DSM-IV often includes polythetic criteria sets, in which theindividual need only present with a subset of items from a longer list (e.g., the diag-nosis of Borderline Personality Disorder requires only five out of nine items). It was suggested that the DSM-lV Classification be organized following a dimen-sional model rather than the categorical model used in DSM-TTI-R. A dimensional sys-tem classifies clinical presentations based on quantification of attributes rather thanthe assignment to categories and VOrks best in describing phenomena that are dis-tributed continuously and that do not have clear boundaries. Although dimensionalsystems increase reliability and communicate more clinical information (because theyreport clinicalattrip~tes that might be subthreshold in a categorical system), they alsohave serious limitations and thus far have been less usefuJ than categorical systemsin clinical practice and in stimulating researd1. Numerical dimensional descriptionsare much less familiar and vivid than are the categorical names for menta] disorders.Moreover, there is as yet no agreement on the choice of the optimal dimensions to beused for classification purposes. Nonetheless, it is possible that the increasing re-search on, and familiarity with, dimensional systems may eventually result in theirgreater acceptance both as a method of conveying clinical information and as are-search tool. Use of Clinical JudgmentDSM-JV is a classification of mental disorders that was developed for use in clinical,educational, and research settings. The diagnostic categories, oiteria, and textual de-scriptions are meant to be employed by individuals with appropriate clinical trainingand experience in diagnosis. It is important that DSM-JV not be applied mechanicallyby untrained individuals. The specific diagnostic criteria included in DSM-IV aremea11t to serve as guidelines to be informed by clinical judgment and are not meantto be used in a cookbook fashion. For example, the exercise of clinical judgment mayjustify giving a certain diagnosis to an individual even though the clinical presenta-tion falls just short of meeting the full criteria for the diagnosis as long as the symp-toms that are present are persistent and severe. On the other hand, Jack of familiaritywith DSM-IV or excessively flexible and idiosyncratic applkation of DSM-IV criteriaor conventions substantially reduces its utility as a common language for communi-cation. Ln addition to the need for clinical training and judgment, the method of data col-lection is also important. The valid application of the diagnostic criteria included inthis manual necessitates an evaluation that directly accesses the information con- tained in the criteria sets (e.g., whether a syndrome has persisted for a minimum pe- riod of time). Assessments that rely solely on psychological testing not covering thecriteria content (e.g., projective testing) cannot be validly used as the primary sourceof diagnostic infom1ation. Use of DSM-IV in Forensic Settings When the DSM-IV categories, criteria, and textual descriptions are employed for forensic purposes, there are significant risks that diagnostic information will be rnis-
  26. 26. •Introduction xxxiii Iused or misunderstood. These dangers arise because of the imperfect fit between thequestions of ultimate concern to the law and the information contained in a clinicaldiagnosis. In most situations, the clinical diagnosis of a DSM-IV mental disorder isnot sufficient to establish the existence for legal purposes of a "mental disorder/"mental disability," "m ental disease," or "mental defect ." In determining whether anindividual meets a specified legal standard (e.g., for competen ce, criminal resp onsi-bility, or disability), additional information is usually required beyond that containedin the DSM-lV d iagnosis. This m ight include information about the individuals func-tional impairments and h ow these impairments affect the particular abil ities in ques-tion. Itis precisely because impairments, abilities, and disabilities vary widely withineach diagnostic category that assignment of a particular diagnosis does not imply aspecific level of impairment or disability. Nonclinical decision makers should also be cautioned that a diagnosis d oes notcarry any n ecessary implications regarding the causes of t he individuals mental dis-order or its associated impaim1ents.lnclusion of a disorder in the Classification (as inmedicine generally) does not require that there be knowledge about its etiology.Moreover, the fact that an individuals p resentation meets the criteria for a DSM-IVdiagnosis does not carry any necessary implication regard ing the individuals degreeof control over the behaviors that may be associated with the disorder. Even when di-minished control over ones behavior is a feature of the disorder, having the diagnosisin itself does not demonstrate tha t a particular individual is (or was) unable to controlhis or her behavior at a particular time. Tt must be noted that DSM-lV reflects a consensus about the classification and di-agnosis of mental disorders derived at the time of its initial p ublication. New knowl-edge generated by research or clinical exrperience will undoubtedly lead to anincreased understanding of the disorders included in DSM-IV, to the identification ofnew disorders, and to the removal of some disorders in future classifications. The textand criteria sets included in DSM-IV will require reconsideration in light of evolvingnew infom1ation. The u se of DSM-IV in forensic settings should be informed by an awareness of the risks and limitations discussed above. When used appropriately, diagnoses and diag- nostic information can assist decision makers in their d eterminations. For example, when the presence of a m ental disor der is ·the predicate for a s ubsequent legal d eter-mination (e.g., involuntary civil commitment), the use of--an-established system of diagnosis enhances the value and reliability of the determination . By providing a com- pendium based on a review of the pertinent clinical and research litera ture, DSM-IV may fadlita te the legal decision makers understanding of the relevant characteristics of mental disorders. The literature related to diagnoses also serves as a check on un- grounded speculation about mental disorders and about the functioning of a partic- ular individual. Finally, diagnostic information regarding longitudinal course may improve decis ion making when the legal issue concerns an individuals mental func- tioning at a p ast or future point in time.Ethnic and Cultural ConsiderationsSpecial efforts have been made in the preparation of DSM-TV to incorporate an aware-ness that the manual is used in culturally diverse populations in the United States and
  27. 27. Ixxxiv Introductioninternationally. Clinicians are called on to evaluate individuals from numerous dif-ferent ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds (including many w ho are recent im-migrants). Diagnostic assessment can be especially challenging ·wh en a clinician fromone ethnic or cultural group uses the DSM-IV Oassification to evaluate an individualfrom a different ethnic or cultural group. A clinician w h o is unfamiliar with the nu-ances of an individuals cultural frame of reference may incorrectly judge as psycho-pathology those normal variations in behavior, belief, or experience that areparticular to the individual s culture. For example, certain religious practices or be-liefs (e.g., hearing or seeing a deceased relative during bereavement) may be misdi-agnosed as manifestations of a Psychotic Disorder. Applying Personality Disordercriteria across cultttr~ settings may be especially difficult because of the wide cultur-al variation in concepts of self, styles of communication, and coping m echanisms. DSM-IV includes three types of information specifically related to cultural consid-erations: 1) a discussion in the text of cultural variations in the clinical presentationsof those disorders that h ave been included in the DSM-IV Classification; 2) a descrip-tion of culture-bound syndromes that have not been included in the DSM-IV Classi-fication (these are included in Appendix I); and 3) an outline for cultural fomllllationdesigned to assis t the clinician in systematically evaluating and reporting the impactof the individuals cultural context (also in Appendix I). The wide international acceptance of DSM s ugges ts that this classification is usefulin describing mental disorders as they are experienced by individuals throughout theworld. Nonetheless, evidence also suggests that the symptoms and course of anum-ber ofDSM-IV disorders are influenced by cultural and ethnic factors. To facilitate itsapplication to individuals from diverse cultural and ethnic settings, DSM-IV includesa new section in the text to cover culture-related features. 1ltis section describes theways in vhich varied cultural backgrounds affect the content and form of the symp-tom presentation (e .g., depressive disorders characterized by a preponderance of so-matic symptoms rather than sadness in certain culhues), preferred idioms fordescribing distress, and information on prevalence ,., hen it is available. The second type of cultural information provided pertains to "culture-bound S)rn-dromes that have been described in just one, or a few, of the worlds societies. DSM-IVprovides hvo ways of increasing the recognition of culture-bound syndromes: 1) some(e.g., amok, ataque de nervios) are included as separate examples in Not OtherwiseSpecified categories; and 2) an appendix of culture-bound syndromes (Appendix I)has been introduced in DSM-IV that includes the name for the condition, the culturesin which it was first described, and a brief description of the p sychopathology. The provision of a culture-specific section in the DSM-IV text, the inclusion of aglossary of culture-bound syndrom es, and the provision of an outline for cultural for-mulation are designed to enhance the cross-cultural applicability of DSM-IV. It ishoped that these new features will increase sensitivity to variations in how mentaldisorders may be expressed in d ifferent cultures and will reduce the possible effect of unintended b ias stemming from the clinicians mvn cultural background. Use of DSM-IV in Treatment Planning Making a DSM-IV diagnosis is only the first step in a comprehensive evaluation. To formulate an adequate treatment plan, the clinician v.rilJ. invariably require consider-
  28. 28. Introduction XXXVable additional information about the person being evaluated beyond that requiredto make a DSM-IV diagnosis.Distinction Between Mental Disorder andGeneral Medical ConditionThe terms mental disordeJ" and gellernl medicnl condition are used throughout this man-ual The term me11tnl disorder is explained above. The term general medical co11ditio11 isused merely as a convenient shorthand to refer to conditions and disorders that arelisted outside the 1Y1ental and Behavioural Disorders" chapter of ICD. It should berecognized that these are merely terms of convenience and should not be taken to im-p ly that there is any fundamental distinction behveen mental disorders and generalmedical conditions, that mental disorders are unrelated to physical or biological fac-tors or processes, or that general medicaJ conditions are unrelated to behavioral orpsychosocial factors or processes. Organization of the ManualThe manual begins with instructions concerning the use of the manual (p. 1), followedby the DSM-IV-TR Classification (pp. 13-26), which provides a systematic listing ofthe official codes and categories. Next is a description of the DStvl-IV Multiaxial Sys-tem for assessment (pp. 27-37). This is followed by the diagnostic criteria for each ofthe DSM-IV d isorders accompanied by descriptiv e text (pp. 39-743). Finally, DSM-Nincludes 11 appendixes.
  29. 29. Cautionary Statement he specified diagnostic criteria for each mental disorder are offered as guidelines ior making diagnoses, because it has been demonstrated that the use of such criteria enhances agreement among clinicians and investigators. The proper use of these cri- teria requires specialized clinical training that provides both a body of knowledge and clinical skills . These diagnostic criteria and ·the DSM-rv Classification of m ental disorders reflect a consensus of current formulations of evolving knowledge in our field . They do not encompass, however, all the conditions for which people may be treated or that may be appropriate topics for research efforts. The purpose of DSM-N is to provide clear descriptions of diagnostic categories in order to enable clinicians and investigators to diagnose, communicate about, study, and treat people with v arious mental disorders. It is to be understood that inclusion here, for clinical and research purposes, of a diagnos tic category such as Pathological Gambling or Pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other non- medical criteria for what constitutes mental disease, mental disorder, or mental dis- ability. The clinical and scientific considerations involved in categorization of these conditions as mental disorders may not be wholly relevant to legal judgments, for example, that take into account such issues as individual responsibility, disability determination, and competency. •• XXXVIII
  30. 30. Use of the Manual Coding and Reporting ProceduresDiagnostic CodesThe official coding system in use in the United States as of publication of thjs manualis the l11tematiollal Classifimtion of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification(ICD-9-CM). Most DSM-IV disorders have a numerical ICD-9-CM code that appearsseveral times: 1) preceding the name of the disorder in the Classification (pp. 13-26),2) at the beginning of the text section for each disorder, and 3) accompanying the cri-teria set for each disorder. For some diagnoses (e.g., Mental Retardation, Substance-Induced Mood Disorder), the appropriate code depends on further specification andis listed after the text and criteria set for the disorder. The names of some djsordersare followed by alternative terms enclosed in parentheses, which, in most cases, werethe DSM-ID-R names for the disorders. The use of diagnostic codes is fundamental to medical record keeping. Diagnosticcoding facilitates data collection and retrieval and compilation of statistical informa-tion. Codes also are often required to report diagnostic data to interested third parties,including governmental agencies, private insurers, and the World Health Organiza-tion. For example, in the United States, the use of these codes has been mandated bythe Health Care Financing Administration for purposes of reimbursement under theMedicare system. Subtypes (some of which are coded in the fifth digit) and specifiers are providedfor increased specificity. Subh;pes define mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustivephenomenological subgroupings within a diagnosis and are indicated by the instruc-tion "specify type" in the criteria set. For example, Del.i.~s ional Disorder is subtypedbased on the content of the delusions, with seven subtypes provided: ErotomanicType, Grandiose Type, Jealous Type, Persecutory Type, Somatic Type, lvlixed Type,and Unspecified Type. ln contrast, specifiers are not intended to be mutually exclusiveor jointly exhaustive and are indicated by the instruction "specify" or "specify if" inthe criteria set (e.g., for Social Phobia, the instruction notes "Specify if: Generalized").Specifiers provide an opportunity to define a more homogeneous subgrouping ofindividuals with the disorder who share certain features (e.g., Major Depressive Dis-order, With Melancholic Features). Although a fifth digit is sometimes assigned tocode a subtype or specifier (e.g., 294.11 Dementia of the Alzheimers Type, With l.ateOnset, With Behavioral Disturbance) or severity (296.21 Major Depressive Disorder,Single Episode, Mild), the majority of subtypes and specifiers included in DSM-IVcannot be coded w ithin the ICD-9-CM system and are indicated only by including thesubtype or specifier after the name of the disorder (e.g., Social Phobia, Generalized). 1
  31. 31. 2 Use of the ManualSeverity and Course SpecifiersA DSM-N diagnosis is usually applied to the individuals current presentation and isnot typically used to denote previous diagnoses from v.rhich the individual has recov-ered. The following specifiers indicating severity and course may be listed after thediagnosis : Mild, Moderate, Severe, In Partial Remission, In Full Remission, and PriorHis tory. The sp ecifi ers Mild, Moderate, and Severe should be used only when the full cri-teria for the disorder are currently met. In deciding whether the presentation shouldbe described as mild, moderate, or severe, the clinician should take into account thenumber and intensity of the signs and symptoms of the disorder and any resultingimpairment in occupatioQal or social functioning. For the majority of disorders, thefollowing g uidelines may be used: Mild. Few, if any, symptoms in excess of those required to make the diagno- sis are present, and symptoms result in no more than minor impairment in so- cial or occupational functioning. Moderate. Symptoms or functional impairment between "mild" and "se- vere" are present. Severe. Many symptoms in excess of those required to make the diagnosis, or several symptoms that are particularly severe, are present, or the symptoms result in marked impairment in social or occupational functioning. In Partial Remission. The full criteria for the disorder w ere previously met, but currently only some of the symptoms or signs of the disorder remain. In Full Remission. There are no longer any symptoms or signs of the dis- order, but it is still clinically relevant to note the disorder- for example, in an individual w ith previous episodes of Bipolar Disorder w ho has been symptom free on lithium for the past 3 y ears. After a period of time in full remission, the clinician may judge the individual to be recovered and, therefore, would no longer code the disorder as a current diagnosis. The differentiation of In Full Remission from recovered requires consideration of many factors, including the characteristic course of the disorder, the length of time since the last period of disturbance, the total duration of the disturbance, and the need for contin- ued evaluation or prophylactic treatment. Prior History. For some purposes, it may be useful to note a history of the criteria having been met for a disorder even when the individual is considered to be recovered from it. Such past diagnoses of mental disorder would be in- dicated by us ing the specifier Prior History (e.g., Separation Anxiety Disorder, Prior History, for an individual "ith a history of Separation Anxiety Disorder wh o has n o current disorder or ·who currently meets criteria for Panic Dis- order). Specific criteria for defining Mild, Moderate, and Severe have been provided forthe following: Mental Retardation, Conduct Disorder, Manic Episode, and MajorDepressive Episode. Specific criteria for defining In Partial Remission and In FullRemission hav e been provided for the follow ing: Manic Episode, Major DepressiveEpisode, and Substance Dependence.
  32. 32. Use of the ManualRecurrenceNot infrequently in clinical practice, individuals after a period of time in which thefull criteria for the disorder are no longer met (i.e., in partial or full remission or re-covery) may develop symptoms that suggest a recurrence of their original disorderbut that do not yet meet the full threshold for that disorder as specified in the criteriaset. It is a matter of clinical judgment as to how best to indicate the presence of thesesymptoms. The following options are available:• If the symptoms are judged to be a new episode of a recurrent condition, the dis- order may be diagnosed as current (or provisional) even before the fuJJ criteria have been met (e.g., after meeting criteria for a Major Depressive Episode for only 10 days instead of the 14 days usuaJiy required).• If the symptoms are judged to be clinically significant but it is not clear whether they constitute a recurrence of the original disorder, the appropriate Not Other- wise Specified category may be given.• If it is judged that the symptoms are not clinkally significant, no additional current or provisional diagnosis is given, but Prior History" may be noted (seep. 2).Princi pal Diagnosis/Reason for VisitWhen more than one diagnosis for an individual is given in an inpatient setting, theprincipal diagnosis is the condition established after study to be chiefly responsible foroccasioning the admission of the individual. When more than one diagnosis is givenfor an individual in an outpatient setting, the reason for visit is the condition that ischiefly responsible for the ambulatory care medical services received during the visit.In most cases, the principal diagnosis or the reason for visit is also the main focus ofattention or treatment. It is often difficult (and some·what arbitrary) to determinewhich diagnosis is the principal diagnosis or the reason for visit, especially in situa-tions of "dual diagnosis" (a substance-related diagnosis like Amphetamine Depen-dence accompanied by a non-substance-related diagnosis like Schizophrenia). Forexample, it may be unclear which d iagnosis should be considered "principal" for anindividual hospitalized with both Schizophrenia and Amphetamine Intoxication, be-cause each condition may have contributed equally t<l the need for admission andtreatment. Multiple diagnoses can be reported in a multiaxial fashion (seep. 35) or in a non-axial fashion (seep. 37). When the principal diagnosis is an Axis I disorder, this is in-dicated by listing it first. The remaining disorders are listed in order of focus ofattention and treatment. When a person has both an Axis I and an Axis II diagnosis,the principal diagnosis or the reason for visit will be assumed to be on Axis I unlessthe Axis II diagnosis is followed by the qualifying phrase "(Principal Diagnosis)" or "(Reason for Visit)."Provisional DiagnosisThe s p ecifier provisional can be used when there is a strong presumption that the fullcriteria will ultimately be met for a disorder, but not enough information is available
  33. 33. 4 Use of the Manualto make a firm diagnosis. The clinician can indicate the diagnostic uncertainty by re-cording "(Provisional)" following the diagnosis. For example, the individual appearsto have a Major Depressive Disorder, but is unable to give an adequate history toes-tablish that the full criteria are met. Another use of the term provisional is for those sit-uations in ,vhich differentia] diagnosis depends exclusively on the dLUation of illness.For example, a diagnosis of Schizophreniform Disorder requires a duration of Jessthan 6 months and can only be given provisionalJy if assigned before remission hasoccurred. Use of Not Otherwise Specified CategoriesBecause of the diversity of dinicalprese.ntations, it is impossible for the diagnostic no-menclature to cover every possible situation. For this reason, each diagnostic class hasat least one Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) category and some classes have severalNOS categories. There are foill situations in which an NOS djagnosis may be appro-priate:• The presentation conforms to the general gwdelines for a mental disorder in the diagnostic class, but the symptomatic picture does not meet the criteria for any of the specific disorders. This would occur either when the symptoms are belov..• the diagnostic threshold for one of the specific disorders or when there is an atypical or mixed presentation.• The presentation conforms to a symptom pattern that has not been included in the DSM-TV Classification but that causes clinicalJy significant distress or impairment. Research criteria for some of these symptom patterns have been included in Appen- dix B ("Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study"), in which case a page reference to the suggested research cdteria set in Appendix B is provided.• There is uncertainty about etiology (i.e., .-. rhether the disorder is due to a general medicaJ condition, is substance mduced, or is primary).• There is insufficient opportunity for complete data collection (e.g., in emergency situations) or inconsistent or contradictory information, but there is enough infor- mation to place itwitl1in a particuJar diagnostic class (e.g., the clinician determines that tl1e indhridual has psychotic symptoms but does not have enough information to diagnose a specific Psychotic Disorder). Ways of Indicating Diagnostic UncertaintyThe following table indicates the various ways in which a clinician may indicate di-agnostic uncertainty:
  34. 34. Use of the Manual slTerm Examples of clinical situationsV Codes (for Other Conditions That May Insufficient information to know whether orBe a Focus of Clinical Attention) not a presenting problem is attributable to a mental disorder, e.g., Academic Problem; Adult Antisocial Behavior799.9 Diagnosis or Condition Deferred on Information inadequate to make any diag- Axis I nostic judgment about an Axis I diagnosis or condition799.9 Diagnosis Deferred on Axis II Information inadequate to make any diag- nostic judgment about an Axis II diagnosis300.9 Unspecified Mental Disorder Enough information available to rule out a (non psychotic) Psychotic Disorder, but further specification is not possible298.9 Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Enough information available to determine Specified the presence of a Psychotic Disorder, but fur- ther specification is not possible(Class of disorder] Not Otherwise Specified Enough information available to indicatee.g., Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise the class of disorder that is present, but fur-Specified ther specification is not possible, either be- cause there is not sufficient information to make a more specific diagnosis or because the clinical features of the disorder do not meet the criteria for any of the specific cate- gories in that class[Specific diagnosis] (Provisional) Enough information available to make ae.g., Schizophreniform Disorder "working" diagnosis, but the clinician wishes(Provisiona I) to indicate a significant degree of diagnostic uncertainty Frequently Used Criteria . . ,. ,Criteria Used to Exclude Other Diagnoses andto Suggest Differential DiagnosesMost of the criteria sets presented in this manual include exclusion criteria that arenecessary to establish boundaries between disorders and to clarify differential diag-noses. The several different w ordings of exclusion criteria in the criteria sets through-out DSM-IV reflect the different types of possible relationships among disorders:• "Criteria have never been met for ... " This exclusion criterion is used to define a lifetime hierarchy behveen disorders. For example, a diagnosis of M ajor Depres- sive Disorder can no longer be given once a Manic Episode has occurred and must be cl1anged to a diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder.
  35. 35. Use of the Manual• "Criteria are n ot met for ..." Thls exclusion criterion is used to establish a hier- archy between disorders (or subtypes) defined cross-sectionally. For example, the specifier With Melancholic Features takes precedence over With Atypical Features for describing the current Major Depressive Episode.• udoes not occur exclusively during the course of . .." This exclusion criterion prevents a disorder from being diagnosed when its symptom presentation occurs only during the course of another disorder. For example, dementia is not diag- nosed separately if it occurs only during d elirium; Conversion Disorder is not diagnosed separately if it occurs only during Somatization Disorder; Bulimia Ner- vosa is not diagnosed separately if it occurs only during episodes of AnorexiaNer- vosa. This exclusion criterion is typically used in situations in which the symptoms of one disorder are associated features or a subset of the symptoms of the preempt- ing disorder. The clinician should consider periods of partial re:rrUssion as part of the "course of another disorder." It should be noted that the excluded diagnosis can be given at times when it occurs independently (e.g., when the excluding dis- order is in full remission).• "n ot d ue to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition." This exclusion criterion is used to indicate that a substance-induced and general medical etiology must be consid- ered and ruled out before the disorder can be diagnosed (e.g., Major Depressive Disorder can be diagnosed only after etiologies based on substance use and a gen- eral medical condition have been ruled out).• "not better accounted for by .. . This exclusion criterion is used to indicate that the disorders mentioned in the criterion must be considered in the differential di- agnosis of the presenting psychopathology and that, in boundary cases, clinical judgment ·w jJl be necessary to deter:rrUne whicl1 disorder provides the most appro- priate diagnosis. In such cases, the "Differential Diagnosis" section of the text for the disorders should be consulted for guidance. The general convention in DSM-N is to allow multiple diagnoses to be assignedfor those presentations that meet criteria for more than one DSM-N disorder. Thereare three situations in which the above-mentioned exclusion criteria help to establisha diagnostic hierarchy (and thus prevent multiple diagnoses) or to highlight differen-tial diagnostic considerations (and thus discourage multiple diagnoses):• When a Mental Disorder Due to a General Medical Condition or a Substance- Induced Disorder is responsible for the symptoms, it preempts the diagnosis of the corresponding primary disorder with the same symptoms (e.g., Cocaine-Induced Mood Disorder preempts Major Depressive D isorder). In such cases, an exclusion criterion containing the phrase "not d ue to the direct physiological effects of ... " is included in the criteria set for the primary disorder.• When a more pervasive disorder (e.g., Schizophrenia) has among lts defining symptoms (or associated symptoms) what are the defining symptoms of a les.s per- vasive disorder {e.g., Dysthymic Disorder), one of the following three exclusion criteria appears in the criteria set for the less pervasive disorder, indicating that only the more pervasive disorder is diagnosed: "Criteria have never been met for ...," "Criteria are not met for ...," "d oes not occur exclusively during the course o,f ... "
  36. 36. Use of the Manual• When there are particularly difficult differential diagnostic boWldaries, the phrase "not better accoWlted for by ..." is included to indicate that clinical judgment is necessary to determine which diagnosis is most appropriate. For example, Panic Disorder With Agoraphobia includes the criterion "not better accounted for by Social Phobia" and Social Phobia includes ihe criterion "not better accounted for by Panic Disorder Ylith Agoraphobia" in recognition of the fact that this is a par- ticularly difficult boundary to draw. In some cases, both ruagnoses might be appropriate.Criteria for Substance-Induced Disordersl tis often difficult to determine whether presenting symptomatology is substance in-duced, that is, the direct physiological consequence of Substance Intoxication orWithdrawal, medication use, or toxin exposure. In an effort to provide some assis-tance in making this determination, the hvo criteria listed below have been added toeach of the Substance-Induced Disorders. These criteria are intended to provide gen-eral guidelines, but at the same time allow for clinical judgment in determining·whether or not the presenting symptoms are best accoWlted for by the direct physio-logica l effects of the substance. For further discussion of this issue, seep. 209. B. There is evidence from the history, physical examination, or laboratory findings of either (1) or (2): {1) the symptoms developed during, or w ithin a month of, Substance Intoxication or Withdrawal {2) medication use is etiologically related to the disturbance C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by a disorder that is n ot sub- stance induced. Evidence that the symptoms are better accounted for by a disorder that is not s ubstance induced might include the following: the symptoms precede the onset of the substance use (or medication use); the symp toms persist for a substantial period of time (e.g., about a month) after the cessation of acute withdrawal or severe intoxication, or are substantial- ly in excess of what would be expected given the type, duration, or amount of the s ubstance used; or there is other eridenc~ that suggests the existence of an independent non-substance-induced disorder (e.g., a history of recur- rent non-substance-related episodes).Criteria fo r a Mental Disorder Due to aGeneral Medica l ConditionThe criterion listed below is necessary to establis h the etiological requirement foreach of the Mental Disorders Due to a General Medical Condition (e.g., Mood Disor-der Due to H ypothyroidism). For further discussion of this issue, seep. 181. There is evidence from the history, physical examination, or laboratory find- ings that the disturbance is the rurect physiological consequence of a general medical condition.