Next Article in Journal
Failure to CAPTCHA Attention: Null Results from an Honesty Priming Experiment in Guatemala
Previous Article in Journal
Death Cafés: Death Doulas and Family Communication
Previous Article in Special Issue
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in the DSM-5: Controversy, Change, and Conceptual Considerations
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessEditorial

Advances in Psychiatric Diagnosis: Past, Present, and Future

Department of Psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-8828, USA
Metrocare Services, Dallas, TX 75247-4914, USA
VA North Texas Health Care System, 4500 S. Lancaster Road, 151, Dallas, TX 75216, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Scott J. Hunter
Behav. Sci. 2017, 7(2), 27;
Received: 17 April 2017 / Revised: 21 April 2017 / Accepted: 22 April 2017 / Published: 26 April 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Psychiatric Diagnosis Past, Present and Future)
PDF [193 KB, uploaded 26 April 2017]


This editorial examines controversies identified by the articles in this special issue, which explore psychopathology in the broad history of the classification of selected psychiatric disorders and syndromes over time through current American criteria. Psychiatric diagnosis has a long history of scientific investigation and application, with periods of rapid change, instability, and heated controversy associated with it. The articles in this issue examine the history of psychiatric nomenclature and explore current and future directions in psychiatric diagnosis through the various versions of accepted diagnostic criteria and accompanying research literature addressing the criteria. The articles seek to guide readers in appreciating the complexities of psychiatric diagnosis as the field of psychiatry pushes forward toward future advancements in diagnosis. Despite efforts of many scientists to advance a diagnostic classification system that incorporates neuroscience and genetics, it has been argued that it may be premature to attempt to move to a biologically-based classification system, because psychiatric disorders cannot yet be fully distinguished by any specific biological markers. For now, the symptom-based criteria that the field has been using continue to serve many essential purposes, including selection of the most effective treatment, communication about disease with colleagues, education about psychiatric illness, and support for ongoing research. View Full-Text
Keywords: psychiatric diagnosis; nosology; disease classification; biomarkers; DSM-5; controversy; Research Domain Criteria; neuroscience; genetics; medical illness psychiatric diagnosis; nosology; disease classification; biomarkers; DSM-5; controversy; Research Domain Criteria; neuroscience; genetics; medical illness
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

North, C.S.; Surís, A.M. Advances in Psychiatric Diagnosis: Past, Present, and Future. Behav. Sci. 2017, 7, 27.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Behav. Sci. EISSN 2076-328X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top