The DSM-5 and Forensic Relationship Status: It’s Complicated

Abstract

Psychologists who work in the civil forensic context are tasked with providing legal decision makers with sufficient valid and reliable data to aid them in deciding the penultimate question of whether the claimant has a psychological injury and whether that injury was the direct result of an event that preceded the injury. In May 2013, amidst a barrage of criticism from mental health professionals, the American Psychiatric Association released the long awaited fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), oft referred to in legal and non-psychiatric contexts as the gold standard or bible of psychiatric disorders. Previous editions of the DSM have traditionally acknowledged the inadequacy of fit between the DSM and forensic environments. In its most current iteration, DSM-5 framers underscore the DSM’s utility in clinical and research settings, while also highlighting the level of forensic review that occurred in the vetting of DSM-5. Notwithstanding, (a) the vetting among forensic professionals and (b) the framers contention that the diagnostic categories are “concise and explicit,” the DSM-5 diagnostic categories, while perhaps fitting for the educational, clinical, and research contexts, just as its predecessors, are likely to lead to unexpected consequences in forensic contexts. Thus, it is incumbent upon psychologists serving as experts in civil forensic contexts to ensure that their findings are supported by data that are sufficiently reliable and based on sound methodology.