Author Archives: Nathen

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Assessment

Posted on by

[First published on Nathen’s Miraculous Escape]

Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a commonly diagnosed mental disorder in school-aged children, occurring in between 2% to 16% of the population, according to the DSM-IV-TR(American Psychiatric Association [DSM-IV-TR], 2000), though actual prevalence rates may be much lower, as will be discussed below. It is characterized by defiant behavior which causes social or academic impairment. It is treated largely with cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or family therapy and sometimes medication, though there is no evidence to support the use of medication for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (WebMD, 2011; Mayo Clinic, 2011).

Diagnostic Criteria and Indicators

DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria. Oppositional Defiant Disorder is currently diagnosed using criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV–TR (DSM-IV-TR, 2000, p. 102):

A. A pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least 6 months, during which four (or more) of the following are present:

(1) often loses temper

(2) often argues with adults

(3) often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults’ requests or rules

(4) often deliberately annoys people

(5) often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior

(6) is often touchy or easily annoyed by others

(7) is often angry or resentful

(8) is often spiteful or vindictive

Note: Consider a criterion met only if the behavior occurs more frequently than is typically observed in individuals of comparable age and developmental level.

B. The disturbance in behavior causes clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning.

C. The behaviors do not occur exclusively during the course of a Psychotic or Mood Disorder.

D. Criteria are not met for Conduct Disorder, and, if the individual is age 18 or older, criteria are not met for Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Other indicators. According to the DSM-IV-TR (2000), Oppositional Defiant Disorder is correlated with emotional reactivity, hyperactivity, and difficulty in soothing before starting school, and with very high or low self-esteem, emotionality, conflict with others, ADHD, and learning disorders during school years. There are also correlations with disrupted attachment, authoritarian parenting, child-neglect, maternal depression and parental discord. (As an aside, I would love to see a factor analysis of these correlations. My guess is that the indicators that are child–specific would end up not predicting much or anything once family-specific indicators were factored in.)

Differential diagnosis. The DSM-IV-TR (2000) suggests differentiating Oppositional Defiant Disorder from nine other behavior classifications: Conduct Disorder can be ruled out by the lack of violence, cruelty, stealing, or lying. Antisocial Personality Disorder is primarily ruled out by not meeting the age criterion of 18 years. Mood Disorders and Psychotic Disorders need to be ruled out using the DSM-IV-TR criteria for the various Mood and Psychotic Disorders; the general inference can be made, however, that a condition is not Oppositional Defiant Disorder if it only occurs during periods of abnormally high or low mood, or during periods in which the child’s reality-testing capacity is abnormally low. Attention-Deficit Disorders can occur “comorbidly” with Oppositional Defiant Disorder; if a child’s problematic behavior qualifies him or her for both illnesses, “both diagnoses should be made” (p. 102). Mental Retardation can also be diagnosed comorbidly, but only if a child’s defiance is more intense than average for their degree of mental impairment. “Average” and “appropriate” in this case, and all cases in these diagnostic criteria, are apparently left to the diagnostician to determine. For another example, the DSM-IV-TR suggests ruling out developmentally appropriate defiance, but leaves the definition of such up to the diagnostician. It is also inferred that “developmentally appropriate” is to be in consideration of the child’s age-cohort, not to that child and their circumstances in particular, or to that child’s experiential cohort, e.g. children experiencing severe marital discord, neglect, abuse, and so on. Finally, problems with language comprehension, such as hearing loss, should be ruled out, as they can produce defiant-seeming behavior.

Assessment Tools

Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children. According to Galanter and Jensen (2009), parts of this interview can be helpful assessing for the ways and extent to which oppositional behaviors are a problem. This assessment tool is intended to produce information strictly in line with the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria. For example, it checks on the 6-month duration requirement for each behavior, not just for the duration of oppositional behavior in general (Shaffer, Fisher, Lucas, Dulcan, & Schwab-Stone, 2000), which may produce a more conservative diagnosis than other assessment tools. Also, it is designed to be easy to administer, without extensive training (Shaffer et al., 2000). The test-retest reliability of this tool is adequate for information from parents, but very low for information from children (Shaffer et al., 2000), meaning for children, the same set of questions administered at different times will yield different diagnoses about 80% of the time, where for parents it is only about 30% of the time.

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). The Child Behavior Checklist is a 4-page pencil-and-paper form, with two pages of general information about the child and two pages of 3-point behavior ratings. It is a broad behavioral rating scale that includes questions about oppositional behavior (O’Laughlin et al., 2010). It is described as easy to complete and as reliably discriminating ADHD children with and without Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Biederman, Ball, Monuteaux, Kaiser, & Faraone, 2008). The CBCL has also been criticized as not asking questions consistent with DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (O’Laughlin, Hackenburg, & Riccardi, 2010).

Behavior Assessment System for Children: Second Edition (BASC-2). The BASC-2 is another broad behavior assessment which contains items related to oppositional behavior in children and has been found to have both high internal consistency and test-retest reliability, though it also does not contain questions that are specific to DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (O’Laughlin et al., 2010). It has a form for teachers (139 questions) and for parents (160 questions), each with a 4-point Likert scale answer from “never” to “almost always” (O’Laughlin, 2010).

Disruptive Behavior Disorders Structured Parent Interview (DBDSPI). The DBDSPI is a semi-structured interview for clinicians to administer to parents using questions with 4-point Likert scale answers, from “not a problem” to “severe problem” (Pelham, Gnagy, Greensledge, & Milich, (1992). This interview has a section specifically for Oppositional Defiant Disorder, produces data that can reliably distinguish children with and without Oppositional Defiant Disorder diagnoses, and does so across different settings, such as school and home (O’Laughlin et al., 2010).

Burke’s Behavioral Rating Scale (BBRS).This scale is listed by some sources as commonly used to assess for Oppositional Defiant Disorder, but there is apparently no research on its psychometrics for that disorder.

IOWA Conners Teacher Rating Scale (Loney & Milich, 1982) tested in Volpe, Briesch, & Gadow, 2011 is a behavior-rating scale commonly used to distinguish ADHD from ODD and includes two 5-item scales. The more time raters are required to use in rating systems, the less reliable the resulting data is. Also, it should be kept in mind that the IOWA is a better tool for using parent and teacher observations to rule out ODD than to diagnose it (Waschbusch & Willoughby, 2008). Widely used to measure oppositional-defiant behaviors.

Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale (DBRS): There is evidence that the DBRS is “adequate” for use with preschoolers (Pelletier, Collett, Gimpel, & Crowley, 2006). For the teacher version, not the parents, yet—no data yet. This may be a problem, because in a study of 1,785 school-age children, () found that there was more source variance than trait variance for oppositional behaviors in the DBRS for mothers and teachers (but not fathers) (Servera, Lorenzo-Seva, Cardo, Rodriquez-Fornells, & Burns, 2010), indicating that in many cases, these behaviors or the perception of these behaviors are relationship specific.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Rating Scale (ODDRS): The ODDRS is an eight-item, four-point Likert rating scale designed gather data for possible Oppositional Defiant Disorder by parents and teachers. Initial research on this tool was promising, but more thorough research found that while teachers’ data was reliable, and parents’ data was reliable, the data from teachers and parents barely correlated at all. Additionally, teacher ratings did not correlate with actual diagnoses of Oppositional Defiant Disorder in the study population (O’Laughlin, Hackenburg, and Riccardi, 2010).

SNAP-IV Teacher and Parent Rating Scale. The SNAP-IV is a Likert-scale, checklist-based assessment tool that has an eight item subsection for identifying Oppositional Defiant Disorder based on the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for that disorder (Munkvold, Lundervold, Lie, & Manger, 2009). Research using this rating scale also shows a source-variance problem, to the point that some researchers have suggested that perhaps there should either be two kinds of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, one for parents and one for teachers, or that Oppositional Defiant Disorder is not a true mental disorder (Munkvold et al., 2009). In one study of 7,007 children using the SNAP-IV, parents identified 1.4% as having Oppositional Defiant Disorder and teachers identified 1.3% as having Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Munkvold et al., 2009). This is below the low end of the scale the DSM-IV-TR suggests of prevalence in the general population of 2-16% (2000), but the sets of students identified by parents and teachers onlyoverlapped in .2% of cases (Munkvold et al., 2009). That is, if we only considered a child as having Oppositional Defiant Disorder if their oppositional behavior was not context specific, this disorder would hardly exist.

Making a Systemic Diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder

I have no clinical experience with this disorder, so I am taking my current opinion with a grain of salt, but reading the research on Oppositional Defiant Disorder has been somewhat troubling in terms of making a systemic diagnosis. I understand that this diagnosis can be a way to funnel resources to families and children in need of them, and that this diagnosis is less pejorative than some alternatives, such as Reactive Attachment Disorder or Conduct Disorder, but I have a few concerns. The strongest predictors of the disorder seem to be relational: whether it is a parent or a teacher judging the behavior, disrupted attachment, negative or abusive parenting, maternal depression, and marital discord. It seems ethically shaky to diagnose a child when that child’s behavior is probably an understandable result of their environment. Also, the diagnosis of a mental disorder means ostensibly that the child has an organic brain disorder, which invites the use of drug treatment, even though there is widespread agreement in all the literature that I read that there is no evidence to support the use of drugs to treat Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

So, my opinion about making a systemic diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder is that I am not sure that one can. For situations in which it seems that it is the least-bad option, it will be important to see the whole family, or at least the parents of the identified patient, to assess family dynamics. Is there serious marital discord? Evidence of disrupted attachment? Any behavioral vicious cycles? Neglect? Abuse? Trauma? Parental psychopathology? Learning disorders? Bad teachers?

I would tend to use a strict interpretation of the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria, based on reports by the parents—as cited above, teacher’s reports have been shown not to correlate with clinical diagnoses of Oppositional Defiant Disorder. By strict, I mean somewhat stricter than theDSM-IV-TR suggests in that I would want to see the oppositional behaviors consistently across contexts. In other words, I do not think a child can have this disorder just at school, or just at home. That would indicate a fully contextual etiology.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Biederman, J., Ball, S. W., Monuteaux, M. C., Kaiser, R., & Faraone, S. V. (2008). CBCL clinical scales discriminate ADHD youth with structured-interview derived diagnosis of Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD). Journal of Attention Disorders 12(1) 76-82.

Galanter, C. A. & Jensen, P. S. (2009). DSM-IV-TR-IV-TR casebook and treatment guide for child mental health. Washington, DC: APA.

Mayo Clinic (2011). Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/oppositional-defiant-disorder/DS00630/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs on March 9, 2011.

Munkvold, L., Lundervold, A., Lie, S. A., & Manger, T. (2009). Should there be separate parent and teacher-based categories of ODD? Evidence from a general population. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(10), 1264-1272.

O’Laughlin, E. M., Hackenburg, J. L., & Riccardi, M. M. (2010). Clinical usefulness of the Oppositional Defiant Disorder Rating Scale (ODDRS). Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18(4), 247-255.

Pelham, W., Gnagy, E., Greensledge, K., & Milich, R. (1992). Teacher ratings of the DSM-IV-TR-III-R symptoms for the disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(2), 210-218.

Servera, M., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Cardo, E., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Burns, G. L. (2010). Understanding trait and sources effects in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder Rating Scales: Mothers’, fathers’, and teachers’ ratings of children fro m the Balearic Islands. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39(1), 1-11. DOI: 10.1080/15374410903401187

Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., Lucas, C., Dulcan, M. K., & Schwab-Stone, M. E. (2000). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): Description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of American Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(1), 28-39.

Volpe, R. J., Briiesch, A. M. & Gadow, K. D. (2011). The efficiency of behavior rating scales to assess inattentive—overactive and oppositional—defiant behaviors: Applying generalizability theory to streamline assessment. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 131-155.

Waschbusch, D. A. & Willoughby, M. T. (2008). Parent and teacher ratings on the IOWA Connors Rating Scale. Journal of Psychopathology Behavioral Assessment, 30, 180-192.

WebMD (2011). Retreived from http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/oppositional-defiant-disorder?page=2 on March 9, 2011.

Parataxic Distortion

Posted on by

My favorite new term from my family therapy program is parataxic distortion, coined by the “American Freud” and one of the grandfathers of family therapy, Harry Stack Sullivan.

A parataxic distortion is when a current situation or person reminds you of something from your past, often without you knowing it, such that you behave to some degree as if you are inyour past, dealing with that situation or person. Parataxic distortion is an umbrella term for confusions like Freud’s transference (client gets inappropriately emotional about therapist) and countertransference (therapist gets inappropriately emotional about client). It is also very much like to co-counseling’s “restimulation of distress.” Most likely every psychotherapeutic school has its own name for this phenomenon.

The idea is that there is a way in which your memories are categorical, not specific. That is, if your dad hit you when you were a kid, you not only attach fear and anger to your dad in your memory, you also attach it to a range of things, maybe bald men, short men, men in general, authority figures in general, certain kinds of places or rooms, etc.

Mostly, our memories are useful. This ability to generalize, for example, helps us avoid burning ourselves on hot stoves in general instead of having to painfully learn not to touch each hot stove. Neat trick!

But with a parataxic distortion, our unconscious memory keeps us from being able to understand and deal with situations as they are, in the present. It patterns your behavior. It limits your options. Usually without your knowing it, it makes your life more scary, sad, irritating, and ultimately isolated than it needs to be. Most therapeutic modalities have some version of this three-stage recipe for resolving parataxic distortions: 1) Form a trusting relationship with someone who has less distortion in the area you have trouble with. 2) Have a “corrective emotional experience,” where you basically re-experience your distortion-driven emotional pattern while demonstrably safe in this trusting relationship. 3) Have a “cognitive reappraisal,” meaning come to a new understanding of your behavior in light of current reality as it is. Go meta.

Easier said than done, of course, but well worth it!

[First published on Nathen’s Miraculous Escape, May 13, 2010.]

The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study

Posted on by

I’m learning about child abuse and neglect in my Child and Family Assessment class. Today I read about the ACE study, by the US Center for Disease Control. It is a huge study, with over 17,000 participants, where they gathered information about childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction, and then proceeded to see what health outcomes and behaviors they could predict with that information. It turns out they can predict a lot. They’ve published 50 articles on the study and the research is ongoing–they are continuing to collect health information as the participants in the study age. I’ll present a few of their findings below. For more, see the ACE Study.

Here are some of their findings. I’ll paste in the definitions of the categories of adverse childhood experiences below. Strong correlations were found with the following:

  • alcoholism and alcohol abuse (4 or more categories of ACE meant 4-12 times increase)
  • chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (that is, lung disease)
  • depression (4 or more categories of ACE meant 4-12 times increase)
  • fetal death
  • health-related quality of life (way more inactivity, severe obesity, bone fractures)
  • illicit drug use
  • ischemic heart disease (IHD)
  • liver disease
  • risk for intimate partner violence
  • multiple sexual partners (4 or more categories of ACE correlated with 50 or more sexual partners)
  • sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) (4 or more categories of ACE meant 4-12 times increase)
  • smoking
  • suicide attempts (4 or more categories of ACE meant 4-12 times increase)
  • unintended pregnancies

Here are the kinds of abuse, neglect, and dysfunction they asked about, quoted from the site:

Abuse

Emotional Abuse:
Often or very often a parent or other adult in the household swore at you, insulted you, or put you down and/or sometimes, often or very often acted in a way that made you think that you might be physically hurt.

Physical Abuse:
Sometimes, often, or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at you and/or ever hit so hard that you had marks or were injured.

Sexual Abuse:
An adult or person at least 5 years older ever touched or fondled you in a sexual way, and/or had you touch their body in a sexual way, and/or attempted oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you and/or actually had oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you.

Neglect

Emotional Neglect1

Respondents were asked whether their family made them feel special, loved, and if their family was a source of strength, support, and protection. Emotional neglect was defined using scale scores that represent moderate to extreme exposure on the Emotional Neglect subscale of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) short form.

Physical Neglect1

Respondents were asked whether there was enough to eat, if their parents drinking interfered with their care, if they ever wore dirty clothes, and if there was someone to take them to the doctor. Physical neglect was defined using scale scores that represent moderate to extreme exposure on the Physical Neglect subscale of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) short form constituted physical neglect.

Household Dysfunction

Mother Treated Violently:
Your mother or stepmother was sometimes, often, or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her and/or sometimes often, or very often kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard, and/or ever repeatedly hit over at least a few minutes and/or ever threatened or hurt by a knife or gun.

Household Substance Abuse:
Lived with anyone who was a problem drinker or alcoholic and/or lived with anyone who used street drugs.

Household Mental Illness:
A household member was depressed or mentally ill and/or a household member attempted suicide.

Parental Separation or Divorce:
Parents were ever separated or divorced.

Incarcerated Household Member:
A household member went to prison.

[First published on Nathen’s Miraculous Escape, May 9, 2010.]

Assessing Sexual or Physical Abuse

Posted on by

Another unfortunately common situation I will have to assess for in the families I see (in addition to drug & alcohol abuse, domestic violence and many other things) is sexual or physical abuse. One of my texts (Patterson’s Essential Skills in Family Therapy: From the First Interview to Termination) estimates that 1 in 5 women and 1 in 9 men were sexually abused as kids. My other practicum text, Brock & Barnard’s Procedures in Marriage and Family Therapy, gives this list of indicators of abuse(p. 52):

The presence of an alcoholic parent

The family with poor mother-daughter connections/bonds

A mother who is very dependent either psychologically or physically as the result of illness or accident

A father who appears to be very controlling and possessive of his daughter(s)

An acting-out adolescent girl engaging in sexual promiscuity or suicidal gestures who is a frequent runaway or drug abuser

A child who appears to be very overresponsible and parentified in the family context

[First posted on Nathen’s Miraculous Escape, May 5, 2010.]

Diagnostic Criteria for Conduct Disorder

Posted on by

[First posted on Nathen’s Miraculous Escape]

This is another DSM-IV-TR Mental Disorder diagnosis that is commonly given to children. The DSM says that its prevelence has been increasing for a few decades now and that up to 10% of kids, mostly boys in “urban settings”, have it. It’s a pretty serious label to give a kid. It’s linked with suicide, homicide, various criminal acts, and is thought of as a precursor to Antisocial Personality Disorder. Here are the criteria, quoted word-for-word from the DSM-IV-TR (pp. 98-99):

Diagnostic criteria for Conduct Disorder

A. A repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basioc rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the presence of three (or more) of the following criteria in the past 12 months, with at least one criterion present in the past 6 months.

Aggression to people and animals

(1) often bullies, threatens, or intimidates others

(2) often initiates physical fights

(3) has used a weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others (e.g., a bat, brick, broken bottle, knife, gun)

(4) has been physically cruel to people

(5) has been physically cruel to animals

(6) has stolen while confronting a victim (e.g., mugging, purse snatching, extortion, armed robbery)

(7) has forced someone into sexual activity

Destruction of property

(8) has deliberately engaged in fire setting with the intention of causing serious damage

(9) has deliberately destroyed others’ property (other than by fire setting)

Deceitfulness or theft

(10) has broken into someone else’s house, building, or car

(11) often lies to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations (i.e., “cons” others)

(12) has stolen items of nontrivial value without confronting a victim (e.g., shoplifting, but without breaking and entering; forgery)

Serious violations of rules

(13) often stays out at night despite parental prohibitions, beginning before age 13 years

(14) has run away from home overnight at least twice while living in parental or parental surrogate (or once without returning for a lengthy period)

(15) is often truant from school, beginning before age 13 years

B. The disturbance in behavior causes clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning.

C. If the individual is age 18 years or older, criteria are not met for Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Code based on age at onset:

312.81 Conduct Disorder, Childhood-Onset Type: onset of at least one criterion characteristic of Conduct Disorder prior to age 10 years

312.82 Conduct Disorder, Adolescent-Onset Type: absence of any criteria characteristic of Conduct Disorder prior to age 10 years

312.89 Donduct Disorder, Unspecified Onset: age at onset is not known

Specify severity:

Mild: few if any conduct problems in excess of those required to make the diagnosis andconduct problems cause only minor harm to others

Moderate: number of conduct problems and effect on other intermediate between “mild” and “severe”

Severe: many conduct problems in excess of those required in excess of those required to make the diagnosis or conduct problems cause considerable harm to others

Predictors of Divorce, According to Elizabeth Gilbert

Posted on by

[First posted on Nathen’s Miraculous Escape, May 3, 2010.]

Elizabeth Gilbert, in her book about marriage, Commitment, lays out her interpretation of a Rutgers report on divorce statistics. Here’s her list of things that correlate with divorce, in the order she mentions them. She lays them out with a lot more subtlety, humor, and personality, but read the book if you want that.

Your parents are divorced

You are alcoholic

You are mentally ill

You cheat on your spouse

You gamble compulsively

You are violent

You are younger than 25

You have not gone to college (especially the woman)

You have children

You lived with your spouse before marriage

You have different racial backgrounds

You are different ages

You have different religions

You have different ethnic backgrounds

You have different cultural backgrounds

You have different careers

You don’t know your neighbors

You don’t belong to social clubs

You don’t live near your families

You are not religious

The man does not do housework

Diagnostic Criteria for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Posted on by

[First posted on Nathen’s Miraculous Escape, May 1, 2010.]

The DSM-IV-TR reports a prevalence of 3-7% for the famous AD/HD, depending, somewhat cryptically, on “the population sampled and the method of ascertainment” (p. 90). AD/HD is a shoe-in for medication in the minds of most mental health professionals. Children have been treated for this Disorder with stimulants since 1937. We still do not know for certain, however, what the effects are on adults who took stimulants as children. We do know that AD/HD tends to go away during adolescence.

Here are the diagnostic criteria, straight from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Note that criterion C is an attempt to make sure that the troublesome behavior is not just a reaction to one situation, like school–you shouldn’t be diagnosed AD/HD based on behavior that only happens at school, or just at home. That would be something else going on. Note also that, according to the “coding note” at the bottom that once you have this diagnosis, unless you have none of these symptoms, you will always be considered AD/HD “in partial remission.” One last note: I notice in reading literature referring to this Disorder that it is usually referred to as ADD/ADHD. I don’t know why this is, as there is no “Attention Deficit Disorder” in the DSM-IV-TR. Perhaps there was in earlier editions.

Diagnostic criteria for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

A. Either (1) or (2):

(1) six (or more) of the following symptoms of inattention have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:

Inattention

(a) often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities

(b) often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities

(c) often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly

(d) often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish school-work, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions)

(e) often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities

(f) often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort (such as schoolwork or homework)

(g) often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g., toys, school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)

(h) is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli

(i) is often forgetful in daily activities

(2) six (or more) of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with development level:

Hyperactivity

(a) often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat

(b) often leaves seat in classroom or in other situations in which remaining seated is expected

(c) often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, may be limited to subjective feelings of restlessness)

(d) often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities quietly

(e) is often “on the go” or often acts as if “driven by a motor”

(f) often talks excessively

Impulsivity

(g) often blurts out answers before questions have been completed

(h) often has difficulty awaiting turn

(i) often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations or games)

B. Some hyperactive-impulsive or inattentive symptoms that caused impairment were present before age 7 years.

C. Some impairment from the symptoms is present in two or more settings (e.g., at shool [or work] and at home).

D. There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning.

E. The symptoms do not occur exclusively during the course of a Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia, or other Psychotic Disorder and are not better accounted for by another mental disorder (e.g., Mood Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dissociative Disorder, or a Personality Disorder).

Code based on type:

314.01 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined Type: if both Criteria A1 and A2 are met for the past 6 months

314.00 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Type:if Criterion A1 is met but Criterion A2 is not met for the past 6 months

314.01 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type: if Criterion A2 is met but Criterion A1 is not met for the past 6 months

Coding note: For individuals (especially adolescents and adults) who currently have symptoms that no longer meet full criteria, “In Partial Remission” should be specified.

Diagnosis

Posted on by

I read the following, by Steven Wolin, in Froma Walsh’s Spiritual Resources in Family Therapy, and it brought tears to my eyes. The “DSM” he mentions is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the medical-style Bible of human psychological problems:

“Now, the DSM-IV was written by people , many of them psychologists, who have figured out every conceivable thing that can go wrong with us, which is very impressive. But I would like to suggest that it’s fundamentally, unintentionally, and insidiously violent to name someone by what’s wrong with them.”

I underlined that quote and thought I’d want to write something about it here. In class that week, it became clear that just about every other person in my cohort had underlined the same passage. We have all just taken a class on DSM diagnosis, because we will have to do it, out there in the world. Insurance companies won’t pay for problems that don’t have medical-sounding names. Major depressive disorder? Here, have some money. Isolated from any kind of supportive community, except for your mom, who you can’t stand for some reason? Hey, get a real problem, preferably one that we have a pill for.

Anyway, I think we all underlined that passage in part because it was so refreshing, after thinking so much about diagnostic categories. It’s also because that quote captures the spirit of the Couples and Family Therapy program we are in, and we were selected by our facultybecause quotes like that would resonate with us. It’s also because it’s so dang true. When you hear how many mental health professionals talk about their clients, it can be awful. ”I’ve got a Borderline at five o’clock,” as if what really matters about that human being is that their behavior fits the diagnostic criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder.

[First published on Nathen’s Miraculous Escape, April 30, 2010.]

Personal Epistemology

Posted on by

My Couples and Family Therapy program has a lot to say about epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. We don’t get so much into the history of it–what various philosophers have decided gets to count as knowledge–but we do get a decent overview of what they call modernist, systemic, and post-modern epistemologies.

The basic question for someone thinking about epistemology is, “At what point can I say I know something to be true?” Here’s a super-oversimplified version of a few “epistemologies”:

Pre-modern: I can say I know something if a book or person that I believe has sufficient authority says it is true. Forever. Also, if I feel very certain about something I might consider it true.

Modern: If I observe something with my own senses, I can say that it is true, at least for that instance. If others who look at the same thing make the same observations, that gives more weight to my belief. I ideally keep the possibility open in my mind, however, that new evidence may come along and change my belief.

Post-modern: I can never really say that something is true, as I am forever limited by the perspective given me by my sense organs, my mind, and my acculturation. I will never have direct apprehension of reality. The closest I can come to real knowledge is a guess that produces useful results.

My program conflates post-modern epistemology with what they call “systemic” epistemology. “Systemic” refers to cybernetics, or systems theory, and in my view is actually an extension of modernism. Traditionally, modernism looks for linear causality and uses reductionism to learn about things. Systems theory looks at causality in terms of networks of interacting, mutually affecting/effected influences, all of which you must see, in action, to understand. It’s holistic, not reductionistic. It doesn’t rely, however on the post-modern insight about the limitation of each person’s perspective.

What I like about my program’s emphasis on epistemology, though, is that they encourage us to examine our “personal epistemology,” so that we know as much as possible how the lens that we view reality through shapes our perspective. A very post-modern idea. We are to think about how we think about reality and own our epistemology. We wrote a series of essays in this vein.

Gregory Bateson, one of the founders of the field of family therapy, said that anyone who doesn’t think they have an epistemology just has a bad epistemology. How would you describe your epistemology? What is your bar for labeling an idea “truth”? What things do you believe are certainly true? Why? Do you think your experiences tell you something directly about reality? Can you take anyone’s word about reality confidently?

[First published on Nathen’s Miraculous Escape, April 25, 2010.]

Virginia Satir and Requests

Posted on by

I’m reading Virginia Satir’s Conjoint Family Therapy. She was this amazing, giant, super-loving woman, one of the founders of the field of family therapy–kind of the Julia Child of family therapy. I’m learning her style of therapy, possibly in part because I was introduced to her work very young, maybe 11 or 12. My mom bought me Elgin’s The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense. It was my first introduction to going meta on communication–thinking and talking about communication, a very useful skill, possibly the central skill of a therapist.

I’m really enjoying reading the original Satir. One of her (many) assertions is that pretty much any time you say anything you are making a request. It could be a request for any number of behaviors, but ultimately they are all requests for some kind of validation. The difference between functional and dysfunctional communication is how overt your requests are. Here’s one of her examples (p. 86):

Functional:

“Let’s see a movie,” or even better, “I would like to see a movie with you.”

Dysfunctional:

“You would like to see a movie, wouldn’t you.”

“It would do you good to see a movie.”

“If you want to see a movie, we’ll see one.”

“We might as well see a movie. It’s Saturday night.”

“There’s a new movie house down the street.”

“My voices are ordering me to see a movie.”

Dysfunctional requests require decoding. If both the sender and receiver of the communication are clear about the codes they use, this is fine, but in general, the more decoding required, the more trouble you get into.

The problem is, if you make a clear request, you can be clearly denied your request. You make yourself vulnerable by saying “Let’s see a movie,” or “Do you like me?” because the answer could be “No.” Unless your self-esteem is quite high, a “No” hurts.

If you send a code, say, “There’s a new movie house down the street,” you can pretend that you’re not putting yourself out there. If your receiver says, “I don’t want to see a movie,” you can say, “What do you mean? I was just commenting on the new building.” Or your receiver can say “No” in code, maybe, “Yeah, that place looks like a dump.” Then things are really fuzzy. You don’t know if they decoded your message accurately, and they don’t know if your message was coded in the first place. It might feel like protection–it might even be protection–but it’s confusing and it lacks intimacy.

Why do we code our requests? We learn to. Maybe we’ve learned not to trust our receiver with a vulnerable request–the way they responded to such requests in the past have been painful. Or maybe it’s just habit, left over from accumulated painful experiences from our younger years. It could be part of your family’s culture, and uncoded requests seem harsh or demanding.

Try watching your communication. How coded is it? How do you feel when you imagine speaking in less coded requests? And try being vulnerable. Try to do even better than Satir’s, “I would like to see a movie with you.” Unpack it more. If you can say with honesty, “Hey, I really like you and I’d like to spend time with you tonight, watching a movie. What do you say?” then do it!

[First published on Nathen’s Miraculous Escape, April 24, 2010.]