Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 2 (2):40-44 (2009)
|Abstract||Background: Despite being often taken as the benchmark of quality for diagnostic and classificatory tools, 'validity' is admitted as a poorly worked out notion in psychiatric nosology. Objective: Here we aim at presenting a view that we believe to do better justice to the significance of the notion of validity, as well as at explaining away some misconceptions and inappropriate expectations regarding this attribute in the aforementioned context. Method: The notion of validity is addressed taking into account its role, the framework according to which it should be assessed and the specific contents to which it refers within psychiatric nosology. Results and Conclusions: The notion of validity has an epistemological thrust and its foremost role is distinguishing correct reasoning and truth from what is irrational or false. From it follows not only that 'validity' always refers to elements of knowledge and rationality such as arguments, inferences and propositions, but also that the appropriate frameworks to assess 'validity' are logics and scientific methodology. When the validity of a psychiatric diagnostic category is at stake, the contents to which it refers are those relevantly related to the notion of 'diagnostic concept'. The consequences of our reading on the notion of 'validity' are discussed vis-à-vis the challenges faced by psychiatric nosology in order to have its diagnostic categories validated.|
|Keywords||validity nosological validity psychiatric classification psychiatric diagnosis psychiatric nosology epistemology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
W. A. Kinghorn (2011). Whose Disorder?: A Constructive MacIntyrean Critique of Psychiatric Nosology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (2):187-205.
J. Ketland (2012). Validity as a Primitive. Analysis 72 (3):421-430.
Tim Thornton (2002). Reliability and Validity in Psychiatric Classification: Values and Neo-Humeanism. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 9 (3):229-235.
Ronald Pies (2011). Toward A Concept of Instrumental Validity: Implications for Psychiatric Diagnosis. Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 4 (1):18-19.
G. Sartor (2000). Legal Validity as Doxastic Obligation: From Definition to Normativity. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 19 (5):585-625.
Timothy Thornton (2002). Reliability and Validity in Psychiatric Classification: Values and Neo-Humeanism. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 9 (3):229-235.
Leslie Forman & Wendy Wakefield Davis (1994). Dsm-IV Meets Philosophy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (3):207-218.
Luis M. Miller (2010). Why a Trade-Off? The Relationship Between the External and Internal Validity of Experiments. Theoria 25 (3):301-321.
Tomis Kapitan (1982). On the Concept of Material Consequence. History and Philosophy of Logic 3 (2):193-211.
Sinan Dogramaci (2010). Knowledge of Validity. Noûs 44 (3):403-432.
Arthur Schram (2005). Artificiality: The Tension Between Internal and External Validity in Economic Experiments. Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (2):225-237.
Floris Heukelom (2011). How Validity Travelled to Economic Experimenting. Journal of Economic Methodology 18 (01):13-28.
Abraham Rudnick (forthcoming). What is a Psychiatric Disability? Health Care Analysis:1-9.
T. Szasz (1994). Psychiatric Diagnosis, Psychiatric Power and Psychiatric Abuse. Journal of Medical Ethics 20 (3):135-138.
Lars Elffors (1988). On Assessing the Validity of the Main Diagnosis in Patient Data Bases: The Impact of Aims for Making Diagnosis. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 9 (2).
Added to index2011-10-15
Total downloads15 ( #85,963 of 722,933 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #10,827 of 722,933 )
How can I increase my downloads?