The upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) will change how Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is characterized by going from a twoactor hierarchical model to a unidimensional disorder. In addition, the number of criteria needed are being reduced—which may increase AUD prevalence rates. The present study examines how these changes will impact college students as compared to their non-college attending peers. Participants were asked to complete questionnaires about their alcohol use and what criteria they meet, a daily functioning questionnaire, and a measure to determine their willingness to engage in risky behaviors. Results indicate that college students will show a disproportionate increase in diagnoses, even though college students who meet criteria show no significant differences in functional impairment compared to students who do not meet criteria. These results suggest that the new criteria may not be a good indicator of AUD presence for college students.

Conceptualizations of depression, this dissertation will demonstrate, are invariably structured by ontological presuppositions that constitute and define boundaries between individual and social, internal and external, body and mind, selfness and exterior, normal and pathological. Furthermore, the way in which these boundaries are set through the ontological ground underlying the modern bio-medical conception of depression are rooted in the history of Western philosophy, rather than corresponding to natural kinds discovered by neuro-medical science. Essentialist, internalist, and individualist assumptions arguably dominating contemporary practices regarding depression in Western medicine are not unavoidable and necessary, but are contingent symptoms of a certain ontological groundwork, that needs to be revealed and examined from a critical perspective to be able to deal effectively with possible deficiencies of the contemporary bio-medical model. In the following study, I focus on different historical conceptions that pathologise some altered form of affectivity that by contemporary lights we would associate with some manner of ‘depression’. These include Hippocrates’, Aristotle’s, Galen’s, and Burton’s conceptions of melancholia; Aquinas’ model of acedia; and the American Psychological Association’s Handbook (APA’s), Matthew Ratcliffe’s, and Thomas Fuchs’ accounts of depression. All these different ontologies are put through a categorical analysis consisting of six steps. In each step, each model is assessed regarding their positions between the two poles: melancholia/acedia/depression being (1) indigenous to the individual versus irreducibly social, (2) caused by internal versus external factors, (3) pathologised based on an individual versus a social dysfunction, (4) formed dependently versus independently in relation to personal characteristics, (5) defined as a bodily versus a mental phenomenon, (6) detached from versus entangled with the authentic self.

A growing body of research has documented associations between personality disorders (PDs) and attachment disturbance, and yet, attachment disturbance does not necessarily guarantee the development of PD pathology. Thus, understanding the mechanisms mediating the relationship between attachment disturbance and PD pathology remains an open area of research. One area with sound theoretical and empirical evidence has shown that attachment disturbances are associated with emotion regulation difficulties, as well as maladaptive interpersonal patterns of behavior. However, the research conducted thus far has predominately focused on borderline personality disorder, at the exclusion of other PD domains, and also has not broadened the scope of research to include other relevant psychological processes that may clarify how personality pathology and attachment disturbance are interrelated. Using a large independent sample of college (n = 946) and community-based individuals (n = 271), the current study aimed to (1) examine how the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) PD trait domains would be differentially associated with maladaptive attachment processes and emotion regulation problems, and (2) explore whether deficits in mindfulness and emotion regulation mediated the relationship between disturbed attachment and PD trait domains. Findings suggested that the PID-5 PD trait domains have general and specific relations to attachment insecurity, impairments in emotion regulation, and decreased mindfulness. Overall, the current study suggests that improving emotion regulation skills and increasing dispositional mindfulness may limit the expression of pathological personality traits. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

No description available.

Presently, the DSM is undergoing revision in anticipation of the publication of the DSM-5 in 2013 (APA, 2010a). The Neurodevelopmental Disorders DSM-5 workgroup has suggested that Asperger’s Disorder (AS) and Autistic Disorder (AD) be subsumed into a new, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis (APA, 2010b). This project reviews researcher methodologies for the description, study inclusion/exclusion, and assessment of individuals with AS and AD in 100 highly cited articles from high-impact journals. Results demonstrate that researchers’ methodologies are highly variable. Additionally, all researchers do not use the “gold standard” combination of the ADOS and the ADI-R for assessing AS and AD. The use of inconsistent and potentially inappropriate methodologies in the literature suggests it may be preemptive to base the proposed DSM-5 revision on the incomparable results in the research.

Discussion surrounds the question as to whether criteria for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) should change, particularly in youth. This study examines the effects of possible criteria changes on GAD prevalence and clinical correlates. DSM-IV GAD was assessed using the M-CIDI in a community sample of adolescents and young adults. Diagnostic thresholds were modified in two age spans (9–20 and 21–34 years) using a person-by-year data file (N = 38,534 cases). Relaxing the duration or excessiveness criteria led to the most pronounced changes in GAD prevalence, while relaxing frequency, uncontrollability, or associated-symptom criteria had smaller effects. A lower duration requirement increased rates more in older than younger age spans. Opposite effects occurred for changes in associated-symptoms or clinical-significance criteria. Broader GAD definitions identified cases in both age spans that appeared mostly milder than DSM-IV cases but that still differed from non-GAD cases in various clinical factors and validators. Developmental aspects require stronger consideration in future diagnostic systems.

The purpose of this thesis is to look into the accuracy of various depictions of mental illness in YA literature, and to discuss the benefits of such literature in understanding adolescent mental illness, given a background of bibliotherapy and illness narratives. This paper analyzes five fictional novels that were selected with consideration to their popularity, relevance, and relatability. These are analyzed using the method of content analysis. The results bring up the depictions of symptoms of depression, mania, trauma, obsessions and compulsions, and suicidal ideations. To evaluate the clinical accuracy of the symptoms described in the selected books, they are compared to the DSM5. The disorders considered in this paper are Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar I Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and Obsessive- Compulsive Disorder, and the suicidal risk of these. The results suggest that the literature has accurate representations of adolescent mental illness. Furthermore, the use of metaphors deepens the reader’s understanding of the characters’ subjective experiences of mental illness. Thanks to its accuracy and ability to convey subjectivity, reading this kind of literature may be beneficial to anyone who seeks to further understand adolescent mental illness. / Syftet med denna rapport är att undersöka hur verklighetstrogna skildringar av psykisk ohälsa är i ungdomslitteratur och att diskutera fördelarna med sådan litteratur när det gäller att förstå psykisk ohälsa hos ungdomar, med bakgrund av biblioterapi och sjukdomsberättelser. Denna artikel analyserar fem ungdomsromaner som valts ut med hänsyn till deras popularitet, relevans och reliabilitet. Dessa analyseras med hjälp av metoden content analysis. Resultaten tar upp skildringar av symtom på depression, mani, trauma, tvångstankar och självmordstankar. För att utvärdera skildringarna av symptom som beskrivs i de utvalda böckerna jämförs de med den diagnostiska manualen DSM-5. De störningar som behandlas i denna rapport är Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar I Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder och Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, och självmordsrisken för dessa. Resultaten tyder på att litteraturen har verklighetstrogna framställningar av psykisk ohälsa hos ungdomar. Dessutom fördjupar användningen av metaforer läsarens förståelse för karaktärernas subjektiva upplevelser av mental sjukdom. Tack vare litteraturens realistiska skildringar och förmåga att förmedla subjektivitet kan läsning av denna typ vara till nytta för alla som försöker att bättre förstå ungdomars psykiska ohälsa.

Theoretischer Hintergrund: Die Arbeitsgruppe Persönlichkeit und Persönlichkeitsstörung für das DSM-5 erarbeitete aufgrund der umfangreichen Kritik an der DSM-IV-TR Klassifikation von Persönlichkeitsstörungen hinsichtlich der kategorialen Diagnosen und Konstruktvalidität eine neue Klassifikation, die als alternatives DSM-5 Modell im Abschnitt III des Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, integriert wurde. Dies schloss auch die Entwicklung neuer allgemeiner Kriterien für Persönlichkeitsstörung ein. Die Kriterien A und B dieser allgemeinen Kriterien stellen die notwendigen Merkmale (essential features) von Persönlichkeitsstörung dar. Die Kriterien C bis G definieren den zeitlichen und situationalen Geltungsbereich der notwendigen Merkmale. Kriterium A der allgemeinen Kriterien umfasst die Kernmerkmale von Persönlichkeitsstörung Selbstpathologie und interpersonale Pathologie. Diese Kernmerkmale gehen zurück auf die Definition von Persönlichkeitsstörung von Livesley. Das alternative DSM-5 Modell geht des Weiteren davon aus, dass sich Selbstpathologie und interpersonale Pathologie in einer eindimensionalen Skala der Funktionsniveaus der Persönlichkeit integrieren lassen, welche die Einschätzung des Beeinträchtigungsgrades auf einer fünfstufigen Skala erlaubt. Neben Kriterium A muss außerdem gemäß Kriterium B des alternativen DSM-5 Modells der allgemeinen Kriterien für Persönlichkeitsstörung zumindest ein pathologisches Persönlichkeitstrait vorliegen. Dahinter steht die Annahme, dass die Dysfunktion von Persönlichkeit (Kriterium A) getrennt von der Beschreibung der Persönlichkeitspathologie (Kriterium B) erfasst werden kann. Letztendlich stützt sich die empirische Basis zu den aktuell vorgeschlagenen Kernmerkmalen von Persönlichkeitsstörung Selbstpathologie und interpersonale Pathologie im alternativen DSM-5 Modell lediglich auf eine Studie. Ziele: Die vorliegende Doktorarbeit setzte sich in Anbetracht der geringen empirischen Basis zum Ziel, die Kernmerkmale von Persönlichkeitsstörung des alternativen DSM-5 Modells empirisch zu überprüfen. Auf der Grundlage der Definition von Persönlichkeitsstörung, die auch die theoretische Grundlage für die Kernmerkmale von Persönlichkeitsstörung im alternativen DSM-5 Modell bildete, wurde ein Fragebogen entwickelt: Das General Assessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD). Das GAPD wurde für den deutschen Sprachraum adaptiert und zeigte eine zufriedenstellende Reliabilität hinsichtlich interner Konsistenz. Dieser Fragebogen hat 85 Items mit jeweils vier Skalen zu Selbstpathologie und Interpersonaler Pathologie. Das GAPD wurde erstens herangezogen, um zu überprüfen, ob die Kernmerkmale Selbstpathologie und interpersonale Pathologie Patienten mit und ohne Persönlichkeitsstörung differenzieren können und zweitens ob diese Merkmale tatsächlich die Bandbreite von Persönlichkeitspathologie abbilden können. Außerdem sollte drittens geprüft werden, ob die Integration von Selbstpathologie und interpersonaler Pathologie innerhalb einer Skala auch empirisch gerechtfertigt werden kann. Viertens sollte untersucht werden, ob die Dysfunktion von Persönlichkeit (Kriterium A) getrennt von der näheren Beschreibung der Persönlichkeitspathologie (Kriterium B) erfasst werden kann. Hierzu wurde der Zusammenhang der Kernmerkmale von Persönlichkeitsstörung (Kriterium A), operationalisiert durch den GAPD, mit den Persönlichkeitstraits (Kriterium B), erfasst mit dem Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP-BQ) und mit dem NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae, Revidierte Fassung (NEO-PI-R), untersucht. Ergebnisse: (1) Sowohl für die Selbstpathologie-Skalen als auch für die Interpersonalen Pathologie-Skalen des GAPD konnte gezeigt werden, dass sie zwischen Patienten mit (n = 75) und ohne Persönlichkeitsstörung (n = 74) differenzierten. Ausnahme bildete hier die Skala (P3) Prosoziales Verhalten. Das GAPD konnte 82 % der Patienten richtig als Patienten mit und ohne Persönlichkeitsstörung zuordnen beruhend auf Diagnosen, die mit dem Strukturierten Klinischen Interview für DSM-IV, Achse II: Persönlichkeitsstörungen (SKID-II) ermittelt wurden. (2) Außerdem zeigten sich für neun der zwölf DSM-IV Persönlichkeitsstörungen mittlere bis hohe Korrelationen mit den Skalen des GAPD. Ausnahmen bildeten hier die zwanghafte, antisoziale und histrionische Persönlichkeitsstörung. Ebenso ergaben sich hohe Korrelationen zwischen GAPD, DAPP und NEO-PI-R hinsichtlich aller korrespondierender Traits auf Domain Ebene des DSM-5 Traitmodells (Negative Affektivität, Bindungslosigkeit, Feindseligkeit, Enthemmung und Psychotizismus). (3) Des Weiteren ergab sich ein Ein-Faktorenmodell für die Skalen des GAPD mit einer Varianzaufklärung von 61,4 %. Die Selbstpathologie Skalen hatten höhere Ladungen auf dem Faktor (.88 - .93) als die Interpersonalen Pathologie-Skalen (.66 - .78). Lediglich die Skala (P3) Prosoziales Verhalten zeigte eine niedrige Ladung (.31). (4) Inkrementelle Validität ergab sich für den DAPP und NEO-PI-R über den GAPD. Umgekehrt zeigte sich dies nur für den GAPD über den NEO-PI-R. Diskussion und Ausblick: Auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse zum GAPD konnte gezeigt werden, dass erstens die Skalen des GAPD, die die Kernmerkmale von Persönlichkeitsstörung (1) Selbstpathologie und (2) Interpersonale Pathologie des alternativen DSM-5 Modells zum großen Teil erfassen, das Vorliegen einer Persönlichkeitsstörung gut vorhersagen können. Zweitens wiesen die Ergebnisse daraufhin, dass die Skalen des GAPD, zum einen mit hohen Traitausprägungen sowohl von normalen als auch pathologischen Traitmodellen, in der vorliegenden Arbeit erfasst durch NEO-PI-R und DAPP, korrelierten und zum anderen mit neun der zwölf DSM-IV Persönlichkeitsstörungen. Damit können die Kernmerkmale eine große Bandbreite von Persönlichkeitspathologie abbilden. Drittens wurde die Integration von Selbstpathologie und interpersonaler Pathologie in einer eindimensionalen Skala faktorenanalytisch bestätigt. Viertens konnte eine getrennte Erfassung von Dysfunktionen von Persönlichkeitsstörung und Persönlichkeitsbeschreibungen, wie sie in den Kriterien A und B des alternativen DSM-5 Modells gefordert wird, in der vorliegenden Arbeit nur zum Teil empirisch Bestätigung finden, da zwar sowohl normale als auch pathologische Persönlichkeitstraits zu den Kernmerkmalen Informationen hinzufügen konnten bei der Untersuchung der inkrementellen Validität, aber andersherum die Kernmerkmale, erfasst durch das GAPD, nur bei normalen Persönlichkeitstraits, erfasst durch das NEO-PI-R, Informationen hinzufügen konnte. Das DAPP als pathologisches Traitmodell deckte bereits die Informationen des GAPD fast vollständig ab. Insgesamt untermauern die Ergebnisse zum GAPD die Validität der Kernmerkmale von Persönlichkeitsstörung des Kriteriums A und die Skala der Funktionsniveaus der Persönlichkeit des alternativen DSM-5 Modells. Die Skala (P3) Prosoziales Verhalten scheint wenig Relevanz für die Diagnostik von Persönlichkeitsstörung zu besitzen. Bei der Interpretation der Ergebnisse zum GAPD sollten folgende Einschränkungen beachtet werden. Zum einen erfasst das GAPD nicht vollständig die Facetten der Kernmerkmale des Kriteriums A des alternativen DSM-5 Modells. Des Weiteren beruht das GAPD auf Selbstauskünften, was aufgrund der Störung in der Selbstwahrnehmung dieser Patienten ein Nachteil bei der Diagnostik von Persönlichkeitsstörung darstellt. Probleme für die Interpretation der Ergebnisse des GAPD ergeben sich außerdem daraus, dass als Vergleichskriterium die DSM-IV Persönlichkeitsstörungen erhoben wurden. Diese Klassifikation gilt an sich als wenig valide und daher die Erfassung als nicht reliabel. Daher wird es in zukünftigen Studien wichtig sein, die neuen Kriterien der spezifischen Persönlichkeitsstörungen des alternativen DSM-5 Modells bzw. das DSM-5 Traitmodell und das hierzu neu entwickelte Erfassungsinstrument Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) zugrunde zu legen. Nichtsdestotrotz ist das GAPD das erste Instrument, welches die Kernmerkmale von Persönlichkeitsstörung des alternativen DSM-5 Modells psychometrisch überhaupt erfassbar macht. Es bot die Grundlage dieser Doktorarbeit, die Validität der Kernmerkmale für Persönlichkeitsstörung des alternativen DSM-5 Modells empirisch zu untermauern. Es wird vorgeschlagen, eine kürzere Version des GAPD als Screening im ersten Schritt des Diagnoseprozesses von Persönlichkeitsstörung anzuwenden, gegebenenfalls gefolgt im zweiten Schritt von einem strukturierten Interview. / Theoretical Background: The DSM-5 Work Group for personality and personality disorders developed a new classification of personality disorder based on extensive critiques concerning categorical diagnoses and construct validity of the DSM-IV classification. The new classification was integrated as alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders into section III of the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition. The alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders also includes new general criteria for personality disorder in DSM-5. The criteria A and B of the general criteria are the essential features of personality disorder. The general criteria C through G define the scope concerning time and situations and exclusion criteria. Criterion A encompasses the core features of personality disorder: self and interpersonal pathology. These core features are based on the definition of personality disorder from Livesley. The DSM-5 model assumes that self and interpersonal pathology can be integrated into a unidimensional Personality Functioning Scale, which enables a five-level rating of impairment in self / interpersonal functioning. Next to criterion A, criterion B of the general criteria for personality disorder requires at least one pathological personality trait to be fulfilled. This entails the assumption that personality dysfunction alone can be measured, independent of personality traits. Finally, the empirical foundation for the proposed core features of personality disorder, self and interpersonal functioning, is based on only one study. Aims: The current doctoral thesis is aimed at validating the core features of personality disorder in the DSM-5, in light of the small empirical foundation existing today. Livesley\'s definition of personality disorder, which is the theoretical basis of criterion A of the general criteria for personality disorder in the DSM-5, was also used to develop a self-report questionnaire: the General Assessment of Personality Disorder (GAPD). The GAPD was translated into German and showed sufficient reliability in terms of internal consistency. The questionnaire has 85 items with four scales for self pathology and four scales for interpersonal pathology. First, the GAPD was used to investigate whether the core features of personality, self and interpersonal pathology, are able to differentiate between patients with and without personality disorder. Second, whether the core features cover the full range of personality pathology was examined. Third, the integration of self and interpersonal pathology into a unidimensional scale was empirically validated. Fourth, whether functional impairment (criterion A) can be assessed separately from personality traits (criterion B) was investigated. This last investigation was carried out by analyzing the relationship between the core features of personality disorder (criterion A) and pathological personality traits (criterion B). Criterion A was operationalized by the GAPD; criterion B was measured by the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP-BQ) and additionally by the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). Results: (1) The patients (n = 75) with personality disorder differed significantly from patients without personality disorder (n = 74) in all Self Pathology and Interpersonal Pathology scales of the GAPD, except (P3) Prosocial Behaviour. The GAPD identified 82 % of patients correctly, as patients with or without personality disorder diagnoses, based on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SKID-II). (2) Furthermore, the GAPD scales showed moderate to high correlations for nine of twelve DSM-IV personality disorders. The exceptions were obsessive-compulsive, antisocial and histrionic personality disorders. Similarly, there were moderate to high correlations between GAPD, DAPP and NEO-PI-R, with regard to all corresponding DSM-5 trait model domains (Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism). (3) Additionally, the analysis yielded a one-factor model with an explained variance of 61.4 %. The Self Pathology scales showed higher factor loadings (.88 - .93) than the Interpersonal Pathology scales (.66 - .78). But (P3) Prosocial Behaviour showed a low loading (.31). (4) The DAPP and NEO-PI-R showed incremental validity over the GAPD, but the GAPD only over the NEO-PI-R. Discussion and outlook: Based on the results it could be shown that, first, the scales of the GAPD, which largely measure the core features of personality disorder in the DSM-5, (1) self pathology and (2) interpersonal pathology, were able to predict the presence of personality disorder well. Second, the results showed large correlations between the GAPD-scales and high trait expressions in both normal and abnormal trait models, measured by the DAPP and NEO-PI-R, as well as large correlations between the GAPD scales and nine of twelve DSM-IV personality disorders. Thus, the core features of personality disorder covered a wide range of personality pathology. Third, factor-analytic studies confirmed the integration of self and interpersonal pathology into a unidimensional scale. Fourth, it could be shown in part that functional impairment can be assessed separately from personality traits, as demanded by criteria A and B of the DSM-5. Normal and abnormal trait models were able to add information to the core features of personality disorder when assessing the incremental validity, but the core features could only add information to normal personality traits. The DAPP as a pathological trait model already covers the information of the GAPD. In summary, the results of the GAPD confirm the validity of the core features of personality disorder of criterion A and the Personality Functioning Scale in the DSM-5. The scale (P3) Prosocial Behaviour seems to have little significance for the diagnosis of personality disorders. The following limitations need to be considered in the interpretation of the results. The GAPD does not capture all facets of the core features of criterion A of the DSM-5. Furthermore, the GAPD is based on self-reporting, which is a disadvantage in the diagnosis of personality disorders, because of a distortion in the self-perception of those patients. Problems in the interpretation of the results might also be due to the use of the DSM-IV personality disorder as the comparison criterion. This classification is regarded as invalid and its assessment as less reliable. Thus, the new criteria of the individual DSM-5 personality disorders and the DSM-5 trait model, as well as the newly developed assessment tool Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), should be included in future studies. Nevertheless, the GAPD is the first tool to allow an assessment of the core features of personality disorder in the DSM-5. It provided the foundation of the current doctoral thesis to confirm the validity of the core features of personality disorder in the DSM-5. It is proposed that a shorter version of the GAPD could be used to screen for personality disorder in the first step of the diagnostic process, followed by a structured interview in the second step, if necessary.

Abstract Background: Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), defined as pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) in DSM-IV and ICD-10, become manifest in childhood, ranging from a severe form, autism, to milder forms, Asperger syndrome (AS) and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS)/atypical autism. AS is also specified in criteria by Gillberg and by Szatmari et al. Different diagnostic criteria sets, overlaps, inaccuracies and exclusion criteria of many comorbid psychiatric disorders in PDDs have caused confusion. In DSM-5, PDDs were replaced by one diagnosis called ASD. Aims and methods: This is an epidemiological study of 8-year-old children and a clinical study of 9- to 16-year-old high-functioning outpatients with AS/autism (HFA). The epidemiological target population (n = 4,422) was rated via the Autism Spectrum Screening Questionnaire (ASSQ) by parents and/or teachers and a screened sample was examined in order to estimate the prevalence of ASDs, to discover deficits in the diagnostic criteria of ASDs, to evaluate DSM-5 draft criteria for ASD, and to assess cut-off scores for the Finnish ASSQ. Comorbid psychiatric disorders were identified and overall level of functioning rated in 50 subjects with AS/HFA. Results: The prevalence of AS according to DSM-IV was 2.5, to ICD-10 2.9, to Gillberg 2.7, and to Szatmari et al. 1.6 per 1,000. The prevalence of autism was 4.1 and that of ASDs 8.4 per 1,000 (DSM-IV). DSM-5 draft criteria were less sensitive in detecting AS/HFA. For 7- to 12-year-old children (IQ ≥ 50), the optimal cut-off scores were 30 in clinical settings and 28 in total population screening using summed parent-rated and teacher-rated ASSQ scores. Comorbid psychiatric disorders were common (prevalence 74%) and often multiple; behavioral disorders in 44%, anxiety disorders in 42%, and tic disorders in 26%. Oppositional defiant disorder, depressive disorder and anxiety disorders as comorbidities indicated significantly lower levels of functioning. Conclusions: Our results indicate the need to standardize the diagnostic criteria. The ICD-11 criteria should be uniform and harmonize with DSM-5. Determining cut-off scores for ASD screening instruments in different languages and cultures is of utmost importance. Clinicians are reminded to investigate psychiatric comorbidity in ASDs in order to target treatment and rehabilitation precisely. / Tiivistelmä Lähtökohdat: Autismikirjon häiriöt, ICD-10:ssä ja DSM-IV:ssä nimellä laaja-alaiset kehityshäiriöt, ilmenevät lapsuudessa. Niihin luetaan autismi, Aspergerin oireyhtymä (AS) ja tarkemmin määrittelemätön laaja-alainen kehityshäiriö/epätyypillinen autismi. Gillberg sekä Szatmari työtovereineen ovat myös määritelleet AS:n kriteerit. Useat diagnostiset kriteerit, päällekkäisyydet, epätarkkuudet ja monien psykiatristen liitännäishäiriöiden poissulkeminen laaja-alaisissa kehityshäiriöissä ovat aiheuttaneet sekaannuksia. DSM-5:ssä laaja-alaiset kehityshäiriöt korvattiin yhdellä diagnoosilla: autismikirjon häiriö. Menelmät ja tavoitteet: Väitöstyö muodostui 8-vuotiaita lapsia koskeneesta epidemiologisesta tutkimuksesta sekä 9–16-vuotiaita AS- ja autistisia (HFA) lapsia ja nuoria koskeneesta kliinisestä tutkimuksesta. Vanhemmat ja/tai opettajat täyttivät epidemiologisen kohderyhmän lapsista (n = 4 422) suomennetun autismikirjon seulontalomakkeen (ASSQ), ja seuloutuneille tehtiin diagnostiset tutkimukset. Tämän jälkeen määritettiin autismikirjon esiintyvyys, kartoitettiin diagnostisten kriteerien puutteita, arvioitiin DSM-5-luonnoskriteerit autismikirjon häiriölle ja määritettiin ASSQ:n seulontarajat. Psykiatrinen komorbiditeetti ja sen merkitys toiminnalliseen tasoon tutkittiin AS-/HFA-lapsilla ja -nuorilla (n = 50). Tulokset: AS:n esiintyvyys oli 2,5/1000 DSM-IV:n, 2,9/1000 ICD-10:n, 2,7/1000 Gillbergin ja 1,6/1000 Szatmarin mukaan. Autismin esiintyvyys oli 4,1/1000 ja koko autismikirjon 8,4/1000 (DSM-IV). DSM-5-luonnoskriteerit olivat epäherkät tunnistamaan AS:ää ja HFA:ta. Parhaiten soveltuviksi ASSQ:n seulontarajoiksi alakouluikäisille (ÄO ≥ 50) osoittautuivat 30 kliinisiä tilanteita ja 28 väestöseulontoja varten laskemalla yhteen vanhempien arvioinnin ja opettajan arvioinnin pisteet. Psykiatrisia liitännäishäiriöitä oli 74 %:lla, ja monilla oli useita. Käytöshäiriöitä oli 44 %:lla, ahdistuneisuushäiriöitä 42 %:lla ja tic-häiriöitä 26 %:lla. Uhmakkuus- ja masennushäiriö sekä ahdistuneisuushäiriöt alensivat merkitsevästi toiminnallista tasoa. Päätelmät: Tulokset osoittivat diagnostisten kriteereiden yhtenäistämistarpeen. ICD-11:een on syytä laatia yhdenmukaiset kriteerit DSM-5:n kanssa. Autismikirjon seulontalomakkeille on tarpeen määrittää eri kieliin ja kulttuureihin soveltuvat pisterajat. Psykiatrisen komorbiditeetin selvittäminen autismikirjon häiriöissä on tärkeää, jotta hoito ja kuntoutus voidaan kohdentaa oikein.

Discussion surrounds the question as to whether criteria for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) should change, particularly in youth. This study examines the effects of possible criteria changes on GAD prevalence and clinical correlates. DSM-IV GAD was assessed using the M-CIDI in a community sample of adolescents and young adults. Diagnostic thresholds were modified in two age spans (9–20 and 21–34 years) using a person-by-year data file (N = 38,534 cases). Relaxing the duration or excessiveness criteria led to the most pronounced changes in GAD prevalence, while relaxing frequency, uncontrollability, or associated-symptom criteria had smaller effects. A lower duration requirement increased rates more in older than younger age spans. Opposite effects occurred for changes in associated-symptoms or clinical-significance criteria. Broader GAD definitions identified cases in both age spans that appeared mostly milder than DSM-IV cases but that still differed from non-GAD cases in various clinical factors and validators. Developmental aspects require stronger consideration in future diagnostic systems.