Often clinical patients are formally diagnosed for the purpose of developing a treatment plan and for monetary reimbursement from insurance companies.

The DMS, a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disordered rendered by the American Psychiatric Association, is a symptom-based manual that classifies and described over 400 psychological conditions. Psychiatric and psychological practitioners utilize the DMS in order to diagnose patients whose symptoms may pertain to criteria of a disorder listed in the manual. While the DMS can often lead to specific and reliable classification, misdiagnosis is still commonplace.

Kirk and Kutchins, in an article called Deliberate Misdiagnosis in Mental Health Practice, discussed the deficiencies in the structure of the diagnosis system used in the DSM-III. These authors said a reason contributing to misdiagnosis is “the unreliability of the of diagnostic classification system.” The rigid classification system leaves little room for “uncertainty and ambiguity of individual cases”, according to Kirk and Kutchins. There are many other reasons why a patient might be misdiagnosed, but misdiagnosis can hinder the progress of the patient.

My mom is a therapist who works primarily with patients from failed treatment who were previously misdiagnosed with borderline personality disorder. Because of the complicated the symptoms that accompany unresolved trauma, it is very difficult for clinicians to classify. She said that most of her patients have dissociate disorders associated with trauma, but previous practitioners have diagnosed them with depressive disorders or borderline personality disorders, which blame the victim instead of looking at the trauma and the real root of the problem. She then said that treatments for each disorder are different, and misdiagnosing patients will miss a huge piece of the problem and the patient will not get well.

So, in conclusion, I would like to say that while the DSM has many advantages, it forces many practitioners to classify their patients into rigid disorders, which then leads the practitioner to adopt a treatment plan that may not work if the patient was misdiagnosed.

Kirk, Stuart A., and Herb Kutchins. Deliberate Misdiagnosis in Mental Health Practice. 2nd ed. Vol. 62. N.p.: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. 225-28. JSTOR. JSTOR. Web. 8 Apr. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/30011964>

Two cars were traveling steadily down Beaver Avenue, beside one another, at 12 a.m. on a Friday night last semester. Before I could fully process the event, I saw the black car that was driving on the right smashed into the right hand side of the white car that was traveling down the left lane. Before contemplating the even, I approached the driver in the white car and offered my testimony in his defense. At around 3 a.m., I received a call from the police station and was questioned about the event. My memory insisted that the black car had tried to make a left hand turn down Frazier and had cut across the left lane crashing into the white car. But, was the event that my mind constructed an accurate representation of the events that had just played out? Could my memory really be inaccurate; had I not just witnessed the event?

According to the article Misinformation Effects and the Suggestibility of Eyewitness Memory, many studies reveal that interviews can lead to profound errors in eyewitness testimony. The misinformation effect, as learned in class, suggests that misleading post event information can lead to skewed and inaccurate memories. In a research paradigm proposed by Loftus, participants view a forensically relevant event; immediately after participants are questioned about the event. Afterwards, participants are asked to recall the event. Evidence from studies using this paradigm reported that the phrasing and information in the leading questions influenced the eyewitness reports. I considered that possibility that the information the driver of the white car had given me regarding the accident after I offered my testimony could have influenced my recollection of the event. What would I have remembered had I spoken to the driver of the other car?

So was my memory of the accident really inaccurate? In class we discussed the difficulties in discerning false information. Without objective evidence, it is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of an eyewitness testimony. In fact, many countries today do not allow for criminal prosecution if the only evidence is eyewitness.

In the event I witnessed, the black car clearly hit the white car. But was it intentional? What happened in between? The driver of the white car suggested one thing. According to the article Zaragoza et al, social factors such as the credibility of the post event source contribute to misinformation. Why would I not believe the driver of the car that had just been hit? The information of the driver could have easily influenced my perception of the accident. The misinformation effect also increases as the time between the witnessed event and exposure to misinformation increases.

Today, police are trained to deal with eyewitnesses, but misinformation will always be an obstacle. Situations where no objective evidence is present are surely challenging.

Source

Zaragoza, Maria S., Robert F. Belli, and Kristie E. Payment. “Misinformation Effect and the Suggestibility of Eyewitness Memory.” Kent State University. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://www.personal.kent.edu/~mzaragoz/publications/Zaragoza%20chapter%204%20Garry%20Hayne.pdf>.