4.5 Review

Research Review: DSM-V conduct disorder: research needs for an evidence base

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 3-33

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01823.x

Keywords

conduct disorder; DSM-V

Funding

  1. MRC [G0601483, G0100527] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R01HD050691] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH045070, R01MH066206, K08MH070627] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. Medical Research Council [G0100527, G0601483] Funding Source: Medline
  5. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD050691, HD50691, R01 HD050691-01] Funding Source: Medline
  6. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH045070-10, R01 MH066206-01A1, MH66206, MH45070, K08 MH070627-01, K08 MH070627, R01 MH045070, MH070627, R01 MH066206] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article charts a strategic research course toward an empirical foundation for the diagnosis of conduct disorder in the forthcoming DSM-V. Since the DSM-IV appeared in 1994, an impressive amount of new information about conduct disorder has emerged. As a result of this new knowledge, reasonable rationales have been put forward for adding to the conduct disorder diagnostic protocol: a childhood-limited subtype, family psychiatric history, callous-unemotional traits, female-specific criteria, preschool-specific criteria, early substance use, and biomarkers from genetics, neuroimaging, and physiology research. This article reviews the evidence for these and other potential changes to the conduct disorder diagnosis. We report that although there is a great deal of exciting research into each of the topics, very little of it provides the precise sort of evidence base required to justify any alteration to the DSM-V. We outline specific research questions and study designs needed to build the lacking evidence base for or against proposed changes to DSM-V conduct disorder.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available