Abstract
The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) recommends diagnosing neurocognitive disorders (i.e., cognitive impairment) when a patient scores beyond -1 SD below neurotypical norms on two tests. I review how this approach will fail due to cognitive tests' power limitations, validity issues, imperfect reliabilities, and biases, before summarizing their resulting negative consequences. As a proof of concept, I use developmental prosopagnosia, a condition characterized by difficulties recognizing faces, to show the DSM-5 only diagnoses 62-70% (n1 = 61, n2 = 165) versus 100% (n1 = 61) through symptoms alone. Pooling the DSM-5 missed cases confirmed the presence of group-level impairments on objective tests, which were further evidenced through meta-analyses, thus validating their highly atypical symptoms. These findings support a paradigm shift towards bespoke diagnostic approaches for distinct cognitive impairments, including a symptom-based method when validated effective. I reject dogmatic adherence to the DSM-5 approach to neurocognitive disorders, and underscore the importance of a data driven, transdiagnostic approach to understanding patients' subjective cognitive impairments. This will ultimately benefit patients, their families, clinicians, and scientific progress.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
