40 The Professional Counselor | Volume 12, Issue 1 Because of the transdiagnostic nature of DMDD symptoms (e.g., Parker & Tavella, 2018), several experts have recommended that DMDD be recognized as either a subtype or specifier under other DSM-5 diagnoses (Mayes, Mathiowetz, et al., 2015), most often as a subtype or specifier under ODD (S. C. Evans et al., 2017; Malhi & Bell, 2019; Mayes et al., 2016; Mayes, Waxmonsky, et al., 2015). This was the approach recently taken by the World Health Organization (2019) in the 11th edition of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11). In the ICD-11, clinicians have the option to diagnose a youth with oppositional defiant disorder with or without chronic irritability-anger. Thus, this diagnostic code allows clinicians to concurrently recognize both symptoms of emotional dysregulation and symptoms of argumentative, oppositional, and vindictive behavior. However, at the time of this writing, the ICD-11 has not been adopted in the United States, so counselors in the United States are still using the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) and the ICD-10 (World Health Organization, 2016). On the other hand, some have cautioned against the use of DMDD as only a subtype or specifier under ODD (e.g., Benarous et al., 2017; Stringaris et al., 2018). Brotman et al. (2017) expressed the concern that many clinicians do not record available specifiers in diagnostic records, and consequently, children and adolescents who are diagnosed with ODD under the DSM-5 might not receive targeted interventions for symptoms of severe irritability and temper outbursts. At the very least, perhaps clinicians should be allowed to diagnose DMDD and ODD concurrently. Another concern in the differential diagnosis of DMDD is potential racial/ethnic bias. As a depressive disorder in the DSM-5 (APA, 2013), DMDD is conceptualized as an internalizing disorder, whereas ODD is conceptualized as an externalizing or disruptive behavior disorder. Researchers have found that African American youth are more likely to be diagnosed with externalizing disorders, whereas European American youth are more likely to be diagnosed with internalizing disorders (e.g., Fadus et al., 2020; Minsky et al., 2006). Though this research has not yet been replicated specifically in the diagnosis of DMDD, prior research indicates that African American youth may be less likely to be identified as having DMDD and may not receive adequate treatment for potential depressive symptoms. Furthermore, researchers have found that African Americans and other minority groups who experience higher rates of racial/ethnic discrimination also experience more mental health and psychosocial functioning difficulties compared to those with lower experienced rates of racial/ethnic discrimination (Tobler et al., 2013). Consequently, counselors should evaluate the extent to which irritability and aggression among minority youth are associated with experiences of discrimination as opposed to internal psychopathology implicit in the DSM framework (e.g., Carter et al., 2019; Mouzon et al., 2017). Treatment Planning Strategies Diagnostic Considerations Certainly, the main source of information for the proper diagnosis of DMDD is the explicit diagnostic criteria and decision rules in the DSM-5 (APA, 2013). To document these diagnostic criteria, counselors might consider using one or more of the cross-cutting measures included in Section III of the DSM-5 (pp. 733–741). Outside the DSM-5, there are currently few diagnostic tools for counselors to use in confirming a diagnosis of DMDD (Baweja, Mayes, et al., 2016). The assessment tools most often used in the research literature measure general irritability, such as the Affective Reactivity Index (Stringaris et al., 2012) or the Clinician Affective Reactivity Index (Haller et al., 2020). Specific to the diagnosis of DMDD, Wiggins et al. (2016) developed a DMDD module that was used in conjunction with the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1