THEDIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERSIN GRADUATE SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION: THEN AND NOW

The Diagnosis of Mental Disorders in Clinical Social Work: A Review of Standards of Care

“…Although social workers have been described as ambivalent (Newman, Clemmons, & Dannenfeiser, 2007), cavalier , deceptive Rubinson, 1999), pragmatic (Corcoran & Walsh, 2006;Dzieglielewski, Johnson, & Webb, 2002;, squeamish (Jordan & Franklin, 2003;McQuaide, 1999), and wary (Turner, 2002) about diagnosis, how clinical social workers diagnose mental disorders, and the extent to which they practice diagnosis in accordance with the standards reviewed here, is largely unknown. By-and-large, the evidence that we do have is drawn from two sources.…”

“…Moreover, psychiatrists misdiagnose mental disorders as well (Flanagan & Ahn, 2006), both deliberately and unintentionally (Muniz, 1999;Rubinson, 1999), although they may be somewhat better diagnosticians than clinical social workers (Flanagan & Ahn, 2006;Shimabukuro, 2008;Rubinson, 1999). If that edge reflects differences between social work education and medical training, then perhaps more congratulations are in order, because schools of social work are providing more classroom training in the use of the DSM than they have in the past (Newman, Clemmons, & Dannenfeiser, 2007). Newman, Clemmons, and Dannenfeiser (2007) surveyed the 175 graduate schools of social work accredited by the Council on Social Work Education to determine the extent to which each program included content on the DSM in their curriculum.…”

“…If that edge reflects differences between social work education and medical training, then perhaps more congratulations are in order, because schools of social work are providing more classroom training in the use of the DSM than they have in the past (Newman, Clemmons, & Dannenfeiser, 2007). Newman, Clemmons, and Dannenfeiser (2007) surveyed the 175 graduate schools of social work accredited by the Council on Social Work Education to determine the extent to which each program included content on the DSM in their curriculum. From at least 35 states, 104 questionnaires were returned, and 77 schools reported offering a specific course on the DSM, "with the amount of content ranging from 5% to 100% [and] averaging 75%" (Newman et al, 2007, p. 301).…”

“…P. 248), although more than 3/4 offered a course in mental status examination. In contrast, 74% of the 104 schools of social work that responded to the survey by Newman, et al (2007) offered a specific course on the DSM. Notably, in 50 schools the course was required, and an average of 75% of the students took the course, whether required to or not.…”

“…However, the same report also raises questions about how social workers are being trained, beyond pattern recognition, in the clinical assessment, reasoning, and judgment upon which diagnosis depends (APA, 2000;Bisman, 1999;Corcoran & Walsh, 2006;Gambrill, 1990;Jordan & Franklin, 2003). On one hand, Newman et al (2007) contend that DSM content should be taught as human behavior, because "when [it] was offered in the human behavior sequence, more of the course tended to be devoted to the disorders of the DSM than in practice courses," adding "the DSM is a way of naming and categorizing behavior and should not be the focus of practice" (p. 304). On the other hand, DSM content is a focus of social work practice in key texts, by Corcoran and Walsh (2006) and Jordan and Franklin (2003), for example, that introduce diagnosis, hand-in-glove, with clinical assessment, clinical reasoning, and treatment planning.…”