Abnormal Behavior Classification

Classification of Abnormal Behavior

In an effort to better understand and to treat abnormal behavior, certain methods are utilized to classify abnormal behavior. Classification of abnormal behavior can allow for professionals to garner a better understanding of mental disorders and the symptoms associated with them. The process of classification must meet specific standards, and from there, a professional is able to refer to tools to help them accurately label one's mental disorder.

There are various methods that aid mental health professionals in their process of classification; such methods include observations, interviews, mental status examinations, psychological tests and inventories, projective personality tests, self-report inventories,

A few types of reliability include: test-retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, and interrater reliability. Test-retest reliability is the measure of whether a procedure yields the same results when originally tested and when retested at a later time. A test would not be considered reliable if the results were not stable after multiple retests. Furthermore, internal consistency reliability describes the requirement that the different sections of a test yield consistent results. For instance, if a test is administered to assess depression, each section of the test must be relevant to depression. Moreover, interrater reliability refers to the consistency of scores of the same tests when administered by different mental health professionals (Sue et al, 2016, p.

The DSM is a list of all of the various mental disorders and what characteristics are used to classify them, based on behavior as well as physical and emotional criteria. Furthermore, in an effort to remain relevant and accurate, the DSM is updated periodically; the most recent version, DSM-5 was published in 2013. DSM-5 has over two hundred disorders listed, which is drastically different from the two categories, idiocy and insanity, that were present in 1840 (Sue et al, 2016, pg. 90).

While the DSM-5 has scored fairly well in terms of reliability and validity, it is not without criticism (Sue et al, 2016, pg. 91). One criticism is that the lack of communication in the revision process does not allow for others to offer feedback to improve the tool. Furthermore, the DSM-5 did not follow the typical process of introducing new disorders by adding it to a section called "conditions for further study". Rather, it skipped that process and just added new disorders without further examination. Another critique is that the decrease of required symptoms can lead to misdiagnoses (Torres,