Historical Underpinnings, Structural Alterations and Philosophical Changes: Counseling Practice Implications of the DSM-5

Jul 10, 2014 | Article, Volume 4 - Issue 3

Stephanie F. Dailey, Carman S. Gill, Shannon L. Karl, Casey A. Barrio Minton

Regardless of theoretical orientation or work setting, professional counselors should have a thorough understanding of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This article includes an overview of the most recent revision process and identification of key structural and philosophical changes in the DSM-5. The authors conclude with a summary of practice implications for counselors, including specific guidance for recording diagnoses, using diagnostic specifiers and incorporating emerging assessment measures.

Keywords: DSM-5, diagnosis, diagnosis specifiers, assessment, American Psychiatric Association 

By definition, counseling is a professional relationship between client and counselor based on empowerment, rooted in diversity, and committed to accomplishing mental health, wellness, education and career goals of individuals, families and groups (Kaplan, Tarvydas, & Gladding, in press). To accomplish these goals, counselors often include diagnosis as an essential component of the counseling process. Even counselors who work in settings where they are not traditionally responsible for diagnostic assessment must possess a comprehensive understanding of diagnostic nosology and nomenclature. Such an understanding helps providers recognize diagnostic concerns and participate in interdisciplinary discussions and treatment decisions regarding consumers who experience distress or disability. Despite competitors such as the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (World Health Organization [WHO], 1992), the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; APA, 2013) is the world’s standard reference for evaluation and diagnosis of mental disorders (Eriksen & Kress, 2006; Hinkle, 1999; Zalaquett, Fuerth, Stein, Ivey, & Ivey, 2008).

The purpose of this article is to present major structural and philosophical changes within the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) in order to make those changes more accessible to counselors. We, the authors, describe how these changes translate to current counseling practice and how they will help counselors utilize the revised nomenclature system. To better understand these changes, we believe it is important to first review development of the DSM and the most recent revision process.

History of the DSM 

The original DSM was psychiatry’s first attempt to standardize mental illness classification. Published in 1952 by the APA, the DSM represented an alternative to the WHO’s sixth edition of the ICD that included a section on mental disorders for the first time (APA, 2000). Focused on clinical utility, the first DSM was grounded in psychodynamic formulations of mental disorders (Sanders, 2011). Emphasizing Adolf Meyer’s psychobiological view, this version of the manual claimed that mental illness represented “reactions” of the personality to psychological, social or biological aspects of client functioning (APA, 2000). A particularly noteworthy characteristic of the DSM’s first edition is that of the 106 conditions it included, only one diagnosis—adjustment reaction of childhood/adolescence—was relevant to youth (Sanders, 2011).

The APA published the next iteration, the DSM-II, in 1968. This version included 11 diagnostic categories and 182 disorders (APA, 1968). Reflecting significant changes in theoretical ideology, the focus of the manual shifted from psychopathology (i.e., reactions) to psychoanalysis (i.e., neuroses and psychophysiological disorders; Sanders, 2011). Authors of the DSM-II maintained a narrative focus when describing disorders.

APA began working on the DSM-III in 1974 and published it in 1980. This iteration differed significantly from previous editions and represented a dramatic shift to a more medically focused model (APA, 1980; Wilson, 1993). Authors of the DSM-III stressed use of empirical evidence to develop diagnoses and claimed theoretical neutrality, signaling a clear attempt to separate the DSM from its psychoanalytic origins (Maser, Kaelber, & Weise, 1991). A new multiaxial system included attention to biopsychosocial conceptualization. For the first time, the DSM-III contained descriptive diagnoses with a focus on positivistic, operationally defined and explicit diagnostic criteria (Wilson, 1993); narrative text also included information such as familial patterns, cultural considerations and gender (Sanders, 2011). The age of empirically based treatments had arrived, and widespread use of the DSM-III became commonplace.

Intended at first only to include minor changes, the APA published substantial modifications to text and diagnostic criteria within the DSM-III-R (1987); as a result, a number of scholars criticized the document intensely (APA, 2000; Blashfield, 1998; Scotti & Morris, 2000). Expanding to 297 diagnoses, Axis I descriptions nearly exceeded 300 pages, while attention to Axes IV and V remained limited to just a few pages. Many scholars continued to question the multiaxial system and validity of field trials (Rogler, 1997).

Heavy critique of the DSM-III and the DSM-III-R led to relatively mild changes to the DSM-IV, published in 1994 (APA, 2000). At nearly seven times the length of the original DSM, this version totaled 365 diagnoses in 886 pages. A text revision (DSM-IV-TR) published in 2000 included wording modifications to ensure nonstigmatizing, person-first language (Scotti & Morris, 2000). The APA also included empirically based information for each diagnosis and diagnostic code modifications to maintain consistency with the ICD-9 (APA, 2000). Like its predecessors, the DSM-IV-TR was heavily critiqued by scholars due to a heavy emphasis on a medical model and rigid classification systems (Eriksen & Kress, 2006; Ivey & Ivey, 1998; Scotti & Morris, 2000). Issues of comorbidity, questionable reliability, controversial diagnoses and excessive use of not otherwise specified (NOS) diagnoses were hot topics among critics (Beutler & Malik, 2002). APA identified these issues as driving forces for structural and philosophical changes in the DSM-5 (APA, 2013).

The DSM-5 Revision Process 

Beginning in 1999, one year before the APA published the DSM-IV-TR, the APA began working on a new edition, which would be more scientifically based, increase clinical utility and maintain continuity with previous editions (APA, 2014a). APA released an initial research agenda focused on nomenclature, neuroscience, developmental science, personality disorders, and the relationship between culture and psychiatric diagnoses (APA, 2000; Kupfer, First, & Regier, 2002). The APA, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and the WHO held 13 conferences between 2004 and 2008 in which stakeholders discussed relevant diagnostic questions and solicited feedback regarding potential changes in nosology. Resulting themes facilitated the research base and fueled the agenda of the DSM-5 working groups (see Kupfer et al., 2002 for the full DSM-5 research agenda).

In 2007, the APA officially commissioned the DSM-5 Task Force, made up of 29 members including David J. Kupfer, M.D., Chair; and Darrel A. Regier, M.D., M.P.H., Vice-Chair (APA, 2014a). Kupfer and Regier provided clear direction to eradicate the use of NOS diagnoses, eliminate functional impairment as necessary components of diagnostic criteria, and use empirically based evidence to justify diagnostic revisions (Gever, 2012; Reiger, Narrow, Kuhl, & Kupfer, 2009). With these marching orders, each working group proposed draft criteria and justification for changes.

Between April 2010 and June 2012, the DSM-5 Task Force facilitated three rounds of public comment and two field trials (Clarke et al., 2013; Jones, 2012a; Narrow et al., 2013; Regier et al., 2013). The APA Board of Trustees reviewed final revisions in December 2012 and published the DSM-5 in May 2013. Although no professional counselors were invited to serve on the DSM-5 Task Force, several professional counseling associations served as important advocates during the revision process (Dailey, Gill, Karl, & Barrio Minton, 2014).

Major Structural Changes 

The general format of the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) is quite different from that of the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000). Although roughly the same number of disorders is included in both editions, structural similarities end here. The DSM-5 (APA, 2013) includes three major sections, revised chapter organization, cross-cutting symptom and severity measures, adoption of a nonaxial system and enhanced coverage of cultural considerations (Dailey et al., 2014). As with previous versions, the text includes a number of appendices related to terminology and coding. 

Section I: DSM-5 Basics

Section I of the new manual includes an introduction to the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) and general instructions on how to use the updated manual, including attention to nonaxial diagnosis and coding considerations. Counselors who diagnose in accordance with the DSM-IV-TR (2000) may be surprised to see that the APA eliminated both the multiaxial classification system and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. Never required for diagnosis, the APA removed the multiaxial system on the premise that it may lead to inaccurate, oversimplified conceptualization regarding complexities of physical, biological and emotional concerns. Furthermore, removal of the GAF was due to claims of insufficient clinical utility and reliability. 

Less radical structural changes discussed in Section I include harmonization of language with the forthcoming ICD-11. The DSM-5 (APA, 2013) incorporates two sets of ICD codes: ICD-9 codes (for immediate use, presented in black print) alongside ICD-10 codes (for use upon nationwide conversion to ICD-10-CM coding expected October 1, 2015, presented in parentheses and in gray print). In addition, authors address consideration for implementing new other specified and unspecified disorder criteria, which present more specific alternatives to previous NOS diagnoses. 

Section II: Diagnostic Criteria and Codes

Section II includes 20 diagnostic classifications or chapters, four more than the DSM-IV-TR (2000), and a significantly revised organization with attention to development and etiology in hopes of enhancing clinical utility (Brown & Barlow, 2005; Kupfer et al., 2002). For example, classifications more frequently diagnosed in childhood and believed to have similar root causes, such as neurodevelopmental disorders (most of which were formerly known as disorders usually diagnosed in infancy, childhood or adolescence), appear first. Diagnostic classifications more commonly seen in older adults and believed to have similar root causes, such as neurocognitive disorders (most of which were formerly known as delirium, dementia, and amnestic and other cognitive disorders), appear much later in the text. 

The DSM-5 Task Force reorganized disorders into new chapters based on research regarding etiology as well as similarity in symptom experience or manifestation. For example, anxiety disorders, which were previously grouped together, now appear in three distinct chapters: “Anxiety Disorders,” “Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders,” and “Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorders.” Extrication of trauma- and stressor-related disorders allows diagnoses that result from traumatic external events or triggers to be grouped together in a more meaningful way (APA, 2013). Because they are diagnostically unique yet often triggered by traumatic events, the chapter “Dissociative Disorders” immediately follows the chapter “Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorders.” 

The DSM-5 Task Force also attended to etiology and development when choosing the order of diagnoses within chapters. This represents a shift from presenting more highly specified disorders first in previous editions of the manual. For example, the chapter “Feeding and Eating Disorders” opens with diagnostic criteria for pica, rumination disorder and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (previously classified as disorders usually first diagnosed in infancy, childhood and adolescence) before covering disorders more classically associated with adolescence and adulthood (e.g., anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge-eating disorder). 

Section III: Emerging Measures and Models

Counselors should not overlook the third and final section of the DSM-5 (Dailey et al., 2014). Section III includes a variety of measures and models in development, including assessment measures, cultural formulation tools, a proposed personality disorders model and conditions for further study (e.g., Internet gaming disorder, nonsuicidal self-injury). Section III does not represent formal changes in nosology or diagnostic processes; rather, most elements are included to enhance clinical use by clinicians and fuel investigations by researchers. 

Proposed assessment measures comprise a major component of Section III. Level 1 cross-cutting symptom measures are tools designed to screen for a broad range of presenting concerns in adults (13 domains) and children (12 domains). In turn, Level 2 cross-cutting symptom measures facilitate more focused assessment of Level 1 domains flagged as concerning. The print version of the DSM-5 also includes a sample dimensional assessment related to psychosis and a reprinting of the WHODAS 2.0, a tool to assess disability and impairment. Most proposed assessment measures are not included in the print version of the DSM-5. For example, the DSM-5 website currently includes many Level 2 cross-cutting symptom measures and disorder-specific severity measures intended to be used as dimensional assessments for some of the most frequently diagnosed concerns. Counselors can find more information about these tools and additional dimensional assessment tools not included in the print version of the DSM-5 by viewing Online Assessment Measures (APA, 2014b) and reading resources provided by Jones (2012b) and Narrow et al. (2013). 

Finally, authors of the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) devoted special attention to diverse ways in which individuals experience and describe distress. This fosters accurate communication so that counselors may better differentiate pathology from nonpathology when work­ing with diverse clients (Dailey et al., 2014). As we will discuss below, counselors may use the cultural formulation interview to talk with clients about symptoms, cultural understanding of concerns and implications for treatment. The DSM-5 Appendix also includes a glossary of cultural concepts of distress.

Major Philosophical Changes

Two major philosophical changes will modify the ways in which counselors approach diagnosis, assessment and communication with other professionals when using the DSM-5 (Dailey et al., 2014). The first is movement away from a purely descriptive diagnostic model (i.e., a traditional medical perspective) toward a neurobiological model. This approach is grounded in client functioning as opposed to strict pathology, and includes research in genetics, neuroimaging, cognitive science and pathophysiology (Kupfer et al., 2002). The second philosophical change is a shift away from a strictly categorical classification system toward a more dimensional approach to nosology (Dailey et al., 2014). 

A Neurobiological Perspective

The first major philosophical change involves a shift in focus from phenomenological interpretations toward identifiable pathophysiological origins (Dailey et al., 2014; Kupfer et al., 2002). Simply stated, the traditional medical model focuses on treating the problem, and the newer functional model focuses on treating and better understanding the problem. Diagnostic assessment has shifted from what to what and why. Previous iterations of the DSM based disorders purely on symptom identification and behavioral observations. As mentioned previously, APA reordered this iteration of the manual to align more clearly with a pathophysiological model that includes attention to etiology, neuroscientific evidence and functional changes associated with or resulting from disease or injury. This shift is consistent with national priorities for deeper understanding of mental illness (Kupfer & Reiger, 2011).

The DSM-5 Task Force incorporated text regarding neurobiology throughout the document, including standing descriptions of genetic and physiological risk factors, prognostic indicators and biological markers that may impact one’s experience with disorder. As noted previously, the lack of clear differentiation between mental and physical disorders served as a major reason for removal of the multiaxial system. The DSM-5 also includes several semantic changes that are philosophical, and possibly strategic, in nature. Whereas the DSM-IV-TR included reference to general medical conditions, the DSM-5 references disorders due to another medical condition. This implies that mental health concerns are, in essence, medical concerns. These seemingly innocuous philosophical shifts send a powerful message regarding the nature of a disorder and, in turn, assumptions about treatment.

As noted in the section regarding structural changes, some diagnostic classifications that were combined previously due to analogous symptomology now stand alone because of research regarding disorder etiology. Aside from the previously mentioned division of anxiety disorders into three separate classifications, mood disorders have been divided into two distinct chapters: “Bipolar and Related Disorders” and “Depressive Disorders.” This philosophical and in some cases structural modification is intended to reflect an emphasis on improved clinical utility and to “encourage further study of underlying pathophysiological processes that give rise to diagnostic comorbidity and symptom heterogeneity” (APA, 2013, p. 13). An example of “underlying pathophysiological processes” is the previous placement of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as a disruptive behavior disorder within the first chapter of the DSM-IV-TR. Given abundant genetic links to ADHD (Rowland, Lesesne, & Abramowitz, 2002), it did not make sense for ADHD to continue as a disruptive disorder alongside oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. ADHD is now classified within the neurodevelopmental disorders chapter of the DSM-5.

In accordance with a neurobiological perspective, the DSM-5 Task Force eliminated the chapter “Disorders Usually First Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence” and replaced it with a neurodevelopmental disorders chapter. Disorders not considered neurodevelopmental in nature are no longer included in this chapter. For example, reactive attachment disorder, which originates from gross pathological care during infancy, is now located within the chapter “Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorders.” There also were other reasons for removing the chapter on disorders usually first diagnosed in infancy, childhood, or adolescence, such as the erroneous insinuation that these disorders manifest only in early development (Dailey et al., 2014).

Despite these changes, the impact of this shift was not as significant as neurobiologists would have hoped (Dailey et al., 2014). The DSM-5 Task Force did not fully accept or incorporate the biological perspective, and critics claimed that clinicans might dismiss important sociocultural variations, especially given the elimination of the multiaxial assessment (Mannarino, Loughran, & Hamilton, 2007). 

Dimensional Versus Categorical Nomenclature

The second major philosophical change involves attention to dimensional assessment and documentation as opposed to strictly categorical diagnosis. Categorical assessment is based on the assumption that diagnostic criteria represent independent, discrete phenomena (First, 2010; Jones, 2012b). In reality, client symptoms occur on a continuum rather than as part of a dichotomy (Dailey et al., 2014). 

As noted previously, dimensional assessment scales are designed to assess frequency, duration, severity or other characteristics of a specific diagnosis (Jones, 2012b). Near the beginning of the revision process, the DSM-5 Task Force proposed dimensional as­sessment measures for nearly every disorder in the manual. Following widespread concern regarding questionable psychometric data, the APA included only one dimensional assessment tool, clinician-rated dimensions of psychosis symptom severity, in the print version of the DSM-5 (APA, 2013). The APA, however, has provided supplemental assessment tools online (APA, 2014b). 

Like the neurobiological perspective, the shift toward dimensional conceptualization was neither universal nor complete. The DSM-5 (APA, 2013) included new severity specifiers for most disorders, and it shifted forward dimensional conceptualization for several key diagnostic classifications. For example, in the DSM-5, DSM-IV-TR substance abuse and substance dependence disorders were collapsed into one new substance use disorder with severity indicators ranging from mild to severe based on the number of criteria presented by the client. Counselors are to diagnose clients who meet two or three criteria as having a mild disorder, those who meet four or five criteria as moderate, and those who have six or more criteria as severe. Counselors will find similar conceptualizations throughout the DSM-5, including in the newly conceptualized persistent depressive disorder, which combines dsythymia and chronic instances of major depressive disorder and includes 18 possible specifiers. 

A more radical reflection of the dimensional approach in the DSM-5 is the presentation of spectrum disorders rather than distinct disorders. One umbrella diagnosis—autism spectrum disorder—replaced DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) disorders of autism, Asperger’s disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder. Autism spectrum disorder includes severity specifiers based on whether a client meets operationalized criteria for “requiring very substantial support, requiring substantial support, or requiring support” in social communication and restricted, repetitive behaviors domains (APA, 2013, p. 52). Similarly, the new chapter “Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders” retains discrete diagnoses, but introduces the probability that brief psychotic disorder, schizophreniform disorder, and schizophrenia exist on a continuum. The APA (2013) claimed that the purpose of this change is to improve diagnostic efficacy, accuracy and consistency; however, critics conceptualized this as more of a philosophical shift (Dailey et al., 2014).

The APA has indicated intent to continue incorporating dimensional approaches in to future iterations of the DSM. For example, Section III includes a framework for diagnosing personality disorders using a hybrid categorical and dimensional model (APA, 2013). This model is based on the premise that personal­ity dysfunction is a range of trait variations “with normal personality functioning on one end and abnormal personality functioning on the other” (Dailey et al., 2014, p. 309). Individuals who adopt the alternative model for clinical or research purposes will conceptualize clients as presenting impairment related to identity, self-direction, empathy and intimacy as they relate to five trait domains (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, psychoticism) and 25 more specific trait facets (APA, 2013). It is unclear whether the more complex dimensional model will be adopted fully in the next iteration of the DSM (Dailey et al., 2014).

Practice Implications for Counselors 

Although many voiced concerns that the DSM-5 would lead to drastic shifts in counselors’ conceptualization of mental disorders, assessment procedures and diagnostic thresholds, this version of the “psychiatric bible” (Kutchins & Kirk, 1997, p. 1) looks remarkably similar to other iterations (Dailey et al., 2014). Despite similarities, the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) provides groundwork for future iterations to more closely represent neurobiological and dimensional conceptualizations of mental illness. Given the professional identity of counselors, and a scope of practice that “serves to promote wellness across the lifespan . . . [including] preventing and treating mental disorders” (Kraus, 2013, p. 1), strictly neurobiological interpretations may lead consumers to ignore essential interactions between individuals and their environments. Counselors who operate from strength-based wellness approaches will likely reject the notion that all mental illness has biological foundations (Dailey et al., 2014), especially as it is a short leap from assuming biological foundations to assuming that one must treat all disorders biologically. Counselors recognize that a biological orientation could lead to erroneous diagnosis, unwarranted medications and the selection of inappropriate treatment approaches. Although one cannot deny that life experiences have powerful impacts on neurobiological systems (e.g., Badenoch, 2008; Cozolino, 2010), there is concern that too heavy a focus on neurobiology may detract from the humanistic roots of counseling (Montes, 2013). 

Certainly, counselors will continue to explore ways in which these philosophical shifts will affect the practice. In the following pages, we provide concrete recommendations for rendering diagnoses consistent with the DSM-5. These include recommendations for using other specified and unspecified disorders, procedures for recording diagnoses, insurance transitions and possibilities for incorporating attention to assessment tools. 

Other Specified and Unspecified Disorders

A primary goal of the DSM-5 Task Force was the removal of NOS diagnoses from the DSM (Gever, 2012; Regier et al., 2009). This removal was based on perceived overuse of NOS by clinicians, especially when clients did not meet clear diagnostic criteria for more specific disorders (Jones, 2012b). Critics claimed that NOS diagnoses were a result of heavy reliance on “psychodynamic, a priori hypotheses” rather than “external, empirical indicators” (Kupfer & Regier, 2011, p. 672). By turning attention to more flexible dimensional diagnoses, creators of the DSM-5 hope to provide avenues for more flexible, yet more accurate labeling of mental disorders. 

Counselors now have two options when working with individuals who do not meet full criteria for a specific diagnosis: other specified and unspecified. Use of other specified allows counselors to indicate, by using either specifiers assigned to that particular diagnosis or a descriptive narrative, the specific reason a client does not meet criteria for a more specific mental disorder (APA, 2013). When more specific information is not available or counselors do not feel comfortable providing additional detail, they may select an unspecified disorder. Each chapter of the DSM-5 includes at least one set of these disorders (e.g., other specified elimination disorder, unspecified elimination disorder). 

Some diagnostic categories, such as bipolar and related disorders and depressive disorders, include specific examples of other specified disorders. For example, a client who meets all the criteria for a major depressive disorder except the time requirement may be diagnosed with 311 other specified depressive disorder, short-duration depressive episode. Counselors are not limited to using only these examples, as other reasons may warrant an other specified diagnosis (Dailey et al., 2014). 

Recording Procedures

Nonaxial recording. Technically, DSM-IV-TR consumers were never required to present diagnoses using a multiaxial format (APA, 2013). Those who are used to the multiaxial system will simply combine previous Axis I (mental disorders and other conditions that may be a focus of treatment), Axis II (personality disorders and mental retardation), and Axis III (general medical conditions) diagnoses into one nonaxial diagnosis. Counselors also might note psychosocial stressors, environmental concerns, and impairments or disability as a brief narrative explanation relevant to the client’s mental health diagnoses if these are not (a) already indicated by the diagnosis, (b) included as a diagnostic subtype or (c) indicated by a unique specifier or severity indicator for the disorder. Counselors may list V codes or 900 codes (conditions associated with neglect or sexual, physical, and psychologi­cal abuse) as stand-alone diagnoses or alongside other diagnoses as long as these are relevant to clients’ presenting concerns and course of treatment. Although the DSM-5 does not include directions for formatting, counselors should keep explanations brief and use terminology appropriate for multidisciplinary communication (Dailey et al., 2014).

Counselors who see dual-diagnosis clients, individuals with medical conditions, and those who have psychosocial and environmental concerns may be overwhelmed by how to prioritize diagnoses. One solution is to list diagnoses in order of priority and scope of the presenting problem (APA, 2013; Dailey et al., 2014). When these are different, such as an adult referred for bereavement but found to have suicidal ideation and meet criteria for major depressive disorder, the APA (2013) advised users to include a parenthetical notation differentiating between the diagnosis and reason for visit. An example diagnosis might be 296.23 major depressive disorder, single episode, severe (principal diagnosis) and V62.82 uncomplicated bereavement (reason for visit). 

Counselors also may need to prioritize presentation of diagnoses when clients have relevant medical diagnoses in addition to mental health concerns. For example, a client who experiences a manic episode, uses alcohol excessively and is not able to control a preexisting thyroid disorder because of the disturbance may receive a diagnosis of: F31.13 bipolar disorder I, current episode manic, severe; F10.10 alcohol use disorder, mild; and E06 chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis. We chose to list alcohol use disorder second because the client appears to be most impaired by the severe manic episode, and we suspect that a pattern of alcohol use and difficulty managing chronic medical conditions are both related to the bipolar disorder. 

The second example raises an important consideration regarding counselors’ scope of practice. Diagnosis of medical conditions alongside mental health disorders makes sense for psychiatrists who are qualified to diagnose and treat both conditions and for mental health professionals who work in interdisciplinary settings where medical diagnoses are a matter of record (Dailey et al., 2014). Given that counselors are not qualified to diagnose medical conditions, it may be wise to refrain from including diagnostic mention of specific medical conditions unless information is gathered via official medical record or consultation. Counselors may consider including mention of client-reported medical conditions elsewhere on the clinical record or qualify medical conditions as self-reported. 

ICD coding. Since publication of the DSM-III, ICD-9 codes have appeared next to each diagnostic classification (APA, 1980). Originally created for statistical tracking of diseases, not reimbursement, most medical systems within the United States use these codes for billing purposes. These codes are also required for use by medical insurance organizations by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). In the DSM-5 (APA, 2013), ICD-9 codes are in black print, appear first, and typically include three digits or begin with V. In contrast, ICD-10 codes are gray in print, appear in parentheses, and generally begin with the letter F or, if representing psychosocial or environmental factors, with the letter Z. The reason for including both coding sets in the DSM-5 is that all practitioners must align with HIPAA, which requires use of ICD-10-CM (clinical modification) codes no later than October 1, 2015. Complete ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes can be found in the Appendix of the DSM-5, listed alphabetically and numerically. 

The implication of this modification is relatively minor for counselors. Counselors should be aware that the initial printing of the DSM-5 contained several coding errors, and not all terminology used within the DSM-5 matches ICD-10 exactly. Counselors can obtain a printable desk reference with coding updates by visiting the DSM-5 coding update section on the website (APA, n.d.). 

Specifiers and subtypes. In keeping with a dimensional philosophy, the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) contains an expanded listing of specifiers and subtypes for disorders listed throughout the manual. As noted previously, this update may include a greatly expanded number of options to denote experience within a diagnosis. For example, counselors may now add the specifier with panic attacks to any diagnosis within the DSM-5. Other important changes include an expanded listing of specifiers for bipolar and related disorders and depressive disorders, such as with catatonia, with anxious distress, and with mixed features. These specifiers are intended to account for experiences that are often present in both types of disorders, such as elements of anxiety, but may not be part of the general criteria for the disorders (APA, 2013). 

Counselors should note all relevant specifiers for each diagnosis. For more information regarding specifiers and subtypes, professional counselors can refer to the DSM-5 for specific coding instructions and examples (APA, 2013). Despite these changes, most situations will require counselors to use the same diagnostic codes regardless of subtypes and specifiers assigned (APA, 2013; Dailey et al., 2014). There are some exceptions, however, such as when recording substance-related disorders. 

Insurance Transitions

The APA (2013) noted that the DSM-5 was “developed to facilitate a seamless transition into immediate use by clinicians and insurers to maintain a continuity of care” (p. 1). Counselors may begin using diagnostic criteria as soon as they are ready to do so. Insurance companies, other third-party payers and mental health agencies, however, may take additional time to adjust their reporting systems from ICD-9 to ICD-10. This is especially true for the transition from a multiaxial to a nonaxial format (Dailey et al., 2014). 

Although many counselors used the multiaxial system for diagnostic decisions, conversations and reimbursement, elimination of this system should not impact treatment decisions or reimbursement. Many third-party billing systems and government agencies collected data regarding a specific diagnosis only (previously Axis I, II and III); therefore, with the transition they should simply be reporting the same type of information. 

Some insurance panels and reimbursement systems may have previously required more information, such as a GAF score, when determining eligibility for services. Given the expansion of severity indicators and specifiers contained throughout the DSM-5, functional impairments or specific disabilities may be noted within the nonaxial diagnosis. If this is not the case, as mentioned previously, counselors may use narrative notations alongside diagnostic labels. To the extent that functional impairment or disabilities are not listed and would previously have been indicated in the multiaxial system, counselors will need to work closely with associated parties to identify revised reporting requirements (Dailey et al., 2014). Counselors also can use the WHODAS 2.0, found in Section III of the DSM-5 or at www.psychiatry.org/dsm5, to more clearly indicate an individual’s level of functioning (APA, 2013). 

The APA initially predicted that the insurance industry would transition to DSM-5 by December 31, 2013. This estimate was overly optimistic, however, as most third-party billing systems and government agencies have been slow to switch over to the DSM-5 and likely will not do so until the nationwide mandate for the use of ICD-10 codes goes into effect on October 1, 2015. Counselors can check with their employers and third-party payers to ensure a smooth transition to the DSM-5 in a manner consistent with local administrative procedures. The APA also is making implementation and transition updates available via their website. 

Emerging Assessment Measures

As discussed previously, the DSM-5 includes a variety of cross-cutting assessment measures, disorder-specific severity measures and interview tools for clinicians. The APA (2013) qualified all print and online assessments, including the WHODAS 2.0 and Personality Inventories, as “emerging measures” intended for further research and exploration in clinical practice. Counselors may do well to integrate attention to screening of cross-cutting symptoms and monitoring of diagnostic severity in practice. 

In most cases, the tools provided by the APA are clear, direct and ready to use; however, these online assessments vary widely in format, quality and rigor of psychometric validation (Jones, 2012b). For example, the severity measure for depression is the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (APA, 2014b; Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001). This well-developed instrument is in the public domain, and psychometric data are easy to access and indicate a strong degree of psychometric integrity. On the other hand, the Severity Measure for Panic Disorder–Adult (Shear et al., 2001) has limited validation and few publicly available references regarding development procedures and psychometric considerations (Keough et al., 2012). From an ethical perspective, counselors who use these measures are responsible for ensuring that they do so in a manner that is within their scope of practice and includes appropriate attention to instrument validity and administration procedures. Professional counselors must adhere to ethical standards (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014; National Board for Certified Counselors [NBCC], 2012) and best practice guidelines (Association for Assessment in Counseling, 2003) when administering and interpreting diagnostic assessments. 

A potentially useful tool to enhance clinical understanding of a client’s cultural worldview, the cultural formulation interview (CFI) is the APA’s attempt to address critics’ claims that the DSM has not historically included culture as part of diagnostic assessment (Dailey et al., 2014). Whereas the DSM-IV-TR (2000) included some cultural characteristics within its diagnostic classifications, it was clear that consumers needed more attention to psychosocial and envi­ronmental factors (Smart & Smart, 1997). The DSM-5 has continued this trend by updating diagnostic classification to include culture-related diagnostic issues for most disorders, supplemental information about cultural concepts and inclusion of the CFI. 

The CFI is a 15–20 minute semi-structured interview consisting of 16 key questions (APA, 2013). With its coverage of numerous topics related to cultural perceptions of the presenting problem, the CFI helps counselors facilitate conversations about domains such as etiological origin, specific circumstances, interpersonal support systems, and coping and help-seeking behavior. Twelve additional modules, to be used as supplements to the CFI or independent of the CFI, are provided by the APA. These modules address topics or specific populations, such as immigrants and refugees; coping and help seeking; and spiritual, religious, or moral traditions. These modules can provide a firm foundation for culturally sensitive counselors to build competence and better understand a client’s worldview from a diagnostic perspective. Even if counselors simply find the CFI a helpful tool for facilitating conversations about culture, the inclusion of the CFI in the DSM-5 is an important step forward in help­ing professionals improve their understanding of cultural competence as essential to diagnostic assessment. 

Perhaps most importantly, counselors do not have to use assessment measures or interview tools associated with the DSM-5 unless those assessment measures are integrated into standard operating procedures with insurance panels or agency policies. We encourage counselors to be selective and discerning as they incorporate emerging tools into practice. Because we expect the APA to continue to release new dimensional assessment and supplemental practice tools on a rolling basis, counselors may wish to visit the DSM-5 website and continue to assess the degree to which the recommended tools may enhance their practice.

Conclusion 

Professional counselors comprise one of the largest bodies of DSM consumers (Frances, 2011). Regardless of background, training or theoretical orientation, counselors are responsible for understanding diagnostic practices and using them responsibly (ACA, 2014; NBCC, 2012). Counselors who are aware of recent modifications to the DSM position themselves for continued advancement of care systems that support “diverse individuals, families, and groups to accomplish mental health, wellness, education, and career goals” (Kaplan et al., in press). In this article, we attended to higher-level philosophical and structural changes within the DSM so that counselors may deepen their understanding regarding underlying foundations and motivations for DSM-5 revisions, even as they adopt more concrete diagnostic practices. We hope this historical and philosophical context helps counselors better advocate for a seat at the table in future DSM revision processes. In the meantime, counselors may use this information to make informed decisions about whether and how they will use the DSM-5.

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The author reported no conflict of interest or funding contributions for the development of this manuscript.

References

American Counseling Association. (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). DSM-5 coding update. Retrieved from http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/DSM5CodingSupplement

American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2014a). DSM-5 overview: The future manual. Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/about/Pages/DSMVOverview.aspx

American Psychiatric Association. (2014b). Online assessment measures. Retrieved from http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm5/online-assessment-measures

Association for Assessment in Counseling. (2003). Responsibilities of users of standardized tests (RUST; 3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://aarc-counseling.org/assets/cms/uploads/files/rust.pdf

Badenoch, B. (2008). Being a brain-wise therapist: A practical guide to interpersonal neurobiology. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Beutler, L. E., & Malik, M. L. (Eds.). (2002). Rethinking the DSM: A psychological perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Blashfield, R. K. (1998). Diagnostic models and systems. In A. S. Bellack & M. Herson (Series Eds.), & C. R. Reynolds (Vol. Ed.), Comprehensive clinical psychology: Volume 4. Assessment (pp. 57–80). doi:10.1016/B0080-4270(73)00225-X

Brown, T. A., & Barlow, D. H. (2005). Dimensional versus categorical classification of mental disor­ders in the fifth edition of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders and beyond: Comment on the special section. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 551–556. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.114.4.551

Clarke, D. E., Narrow, W. E., Regier, D. A., Kuramoto, S. J., Kupfer, D. J., Kuhl, E. A., . . . Kraemer, H. C. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part I: Study design, sampling strategy, implementation, and analytic approaches. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 43–58.

Cozolino, L. (2010). The neuroscience of psychotherapy: Healing the social brain (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Dailey, S. F., Gill, C. S., Karl, S. L., & Barrio Minton, C. A. (2014). DSM-5 learning companion for counselors. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Eriksen, K., & Kress, V. E. (2006). The DSM and the professional counseling identity: Bridging the gap. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 28, 202–217.

First, M. B. (2010). Clinical utility in the revision of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41, 465–473. doi:10.1037/a0021511

Frances, A. J. (2011, June 3). Who needs DSM-5? A strong warning comes from professional coun­selors. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201106/who-needs-dsm-5

Gever, J. (2012, May 10). DSM-5: What’s in, what’s out. Retrieved from http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/APA/32619

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1320d et seq. (West 1996).

Hinkle, J. S. (1999). A voice from the trenches: A reaction to Ivey and Ivey (1998). Journal of Coun­seling & Development, 77, 474–483. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02475.x

Ivey, A. E., & Ivey, M. B. (1998). Reframing DSM-IV: Positive strategies from developmental coun­seling and therapy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76, 334–350. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1998.tb02550.x

Jones, K. D. (2012a). A critique of the DSM-5 field trials. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200, 517–519.

Jones, K. D. (2012b). Dimensional and cross-cutting assessment in the DSM-5. Journal of Counsel­ing & Development, 90, 481–487. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00059.x

Kaplan, D. M., Tarvydas, V. M., & Gladding, S. T. (in press). 20/20: A Vision for the Future of Counseling: The new consensus definition of counseling. Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org/docs/david-kaplan’s-files/consensus-definition-of-counseling.docx?sfvrsn=2

Keough, M. E., Porter, E., Kredlow, M. A., Worthington, J. J., Hoge, E. A., Pollack, M. H., . . . & Simon, N. M. (2012). Anchoring the panic disorder severity scale. Assessment, 19, 257–259. doi:10.1177/1073191112436668

Kraus, K. (2013). 20/20 A vision for the future of counseling: Endorsement letter. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org/docs/david-kaplan’s-files/endorsement-letter.docx?sfvrsn=2

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9 validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 606–613.

Kupfer, D. J., First, M. B., & Regier, D. A. (Eds.). (2002). A research agenda for DSM-V. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Kupfer, D. J., & Regier, D. A. (2011). Neuroscience, clinical evidence, and the future of psychiatric classification in DSM-5. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 672–674.

Kutchins, H., & Kirk, S. A. (1997). Making us crazy: DSM: The psychiatric bible and the creation of mental disorders. New York, NY: Free Press.

Mannarino, M. B., Loughran, M. J., & Hamilton, D. (2007, October). The professional counselor and the diagnostic process: Challenges and opportunities for education and training. Program presented at the annual Association for Counselor Education and Supervision Conference, Columbus, OH.

Maser, J. D., Kaelber, C., & Weise, R. E. (1991). International use and attitudes toward DSM-III and DSM-III-R: Growing consensus in psychiatric classification. Journal of Abnormal Psychol­ogy, 100, 271–279. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.100.3.271

Montes, S. (2013, November 1). Facing a rising tide of personality disorders. Counseling Today, 56(5), 33–39.

Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kuramoto, S. J., Kraemer, H. C., Kupfer, D. J., Greiner, L., & Regier, D. A. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part III: Development and reliability testing of a cross-cutting symptom assessment for DSM-5. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 71–82.

National Board for Certified Counselors. (2012). NBCC code of Ethics. Greensboro, NC: Author.

Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kraemer, H. C., Kuramoto, S. J., Kuhl, E. A., & Kupfer, D. J. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part II: Test-retest reliability of selected categorical diagnoses. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 59–70.

Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Kuhl, E. A., & Kupfer, D. J. (2009). The conceptual development of DSM-V. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 166, 645–650.

Rogler, L. H. (1997). Making sense of historical changes in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: Five propositions. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 9–20.

Rowland, A. S., Lesesne, C. A., & Abramowitz, A. J. (2002). The epidemiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A public health view. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 8, 162–170. doi: 10.1002/mrdd.10036

Sanders, J. L. (2011). A distinct language and a historic pendulum: The evolution of the diag­nostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 25, 394–403. doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2010.10.002

Scotti, J. R., & Morris, T. L. (2000). Diagnosis and classification. In M. Hersen & R. T. Ammerman (Eds.), Advanced abnormal child psychology (2nd ed., pp. 15–32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shear, M. K., Rucci, P., Williams, J., Frank, E., Grochocinski, V., Vander Bilt, J., . . . & Wang, T. (2001). Reliability and validity of the Panic Disorder Severity Scale: Replication and extension. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 35, 293–296.

Smart, D. W., & Smart, J. F. (1997). DSM-IV and culturally sensitive diagnosis: Some observations for counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75, 392–398. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1997.tb02355.x

Wilson, M. (1993). DSM-III and the transformation of American psychiatry: A history. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 399–410.

World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Zalaquett, C. P., Fuerth, K. M., Stein, C., Ivey, A. E., & Ivey, M. B. (2008). Reframing the DSM-IV-TR from a multicultural/social justice perspective. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 364–371. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00521.x

The Removal of the Multiaxial System in the DSM-5: Implications and Practice Suggestions for Counselors

Jul 8, 2014 | Article, Volume 4 - Issue 3

Victoria E. Kress, Casey A. Barrio Minton, Nicole A. Adamson, Matthew J. Paylo, Verl Pope

With the advent of the DSM-5 in 2013, the American Psychiatric Association eliminated the longstanding multiaxial system for mental disorders. The removal of the multiaxial system has implications for counselors’ diagnostic practices. In this article, the removal of the multiaxial system in the DSM-5 is discussed, and counselor practice suggestions related to each of the five Axes are provided. Additionally, ways in which counselors can sustain their current diagnostic skills while developing updated practices that align with the new streamlined system will be discussed.

Keywords: DSM-5, multiaxial system, diagnostic skills, mental disorders 

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) developed the original Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1952 to create a uniform way to define mental health disorders. At the time, the manual contained narrative, psychodynamic descriptions regarding psychiatric disorders. Fueled by criticism regarding questionable foundations and lack of discrete diagnostic criteria, APA engaged in a comprehensive overhaul of the diagnostic system in preparation for the third edition of the manual (First, 2010). In 1980, the APA released the radically different DSM-III, a categorical nosological system with presumably atheoretical foundations and a multiaxial assessment system that ensured attention to biological, psychological and social elements related to mental disorders.

Although paradigm shifts were not as comprehensive as some might have hoped (First, 2010; Kupfer & Reiger, 2011), the most recent revision process resulted in the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) and the first major structural changes to diagnostic classifications and procedures since the DSM-III (APA, 1980). Key DSM-5 changes included reorganization of disorders into new categories on the basis of presumed etiological characteristics, movement toward dimensional conceptualization of disorders and discontinuation of the multiaxial system (Dailey, Gill, Karl, & Barrio Minton, 2014). Some revisions, such as a trend toward lower diagnostic thresholds (Frances, 2013; Miller & Prosek, 2013) and incorporation of complex, unvalidated assessment tools (First, 2010; Jones, 2012) received a great deal of public attention and comment. In contrast, removal of the multiaxial system happened quietly and with very little scholarly or public comment (Probst, 2014).

In this article, the title DSM will be used to refer to historic versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. References to specific editions will be clearly indicated with numerals or numbers in addition to the title. First, we provide a brief overview of the DSM and its use by counselors. Next, we describe the longstanding multiaxial system and discuss arguments in favor of and against removal of the multiaxial system. Throughout, we discuss implications for counselor diagnosis and practice.

Counselors’ Use of the DSM 

In order to understand the implications of the elimination of the multiaxial system, professional counselors must possess a preliminary understanding of the complex relationship between professional counseling and the DSM. Over time, the more general DSM system has come under critical review, especially by counselors who question how the diagnostic process fits with our professional identity and ethical obligations (Eriksen & Kress, 2006; Kress, Hoffman, & Eriksen, 2010; Zalaquett, Fuerth, Stein, Ivey, & Ivey, 2008). Eriksen and Kress (2005) detailed commonly cited limitations of the DSM and how it is used:

• Historically, some diagnostic labels have marginalized, stigmatized and harmed those who are different from the mainstream (e.g., homosexuality was once a DSM diagnosis).
• There is limited evidence of cross-cultural validity in diagnostic conceptualizations.
• Counselors who focus narrowly on diagnosis may only look for behaviors that fit within a medical or biological understanding of the person’s struggles (i.e., becoming reductionistic).
• The DSM system does not include sufficient emphasis on contextual factors (e.g., developmental struggles and transitions, culture, gender), strengths, resources, and uniqueness that may better explain the roots of client struggles and treatment implications.
• The DSM system cannot predict treatment outcomes or point to the etiology of mental disorders.
• Some people may use diagnosis to accept a self-fulfilling prophecy that their situation is hopeless and that they are sick.
• Diagnosing may preclude a focus on the client’s unique construction of his or her experience.
• There are flaws in the science behind DSM diagnoses; what is and is not classified as a mental disorder is often rooted in a political agenda and historical influences.

Limitations of the DSM require that counselors use it carefully, and thoughtfully consider challenges related to its use. Although Eriksen and Kress (2005) wrote in reference to the DSM-IV-TR, underlying assumptions and broad-based diagnostic processes have not changed in the DSM-5 (APA, 2013). We expect that these limitations will continue to be relevant to counselors.

In contrast to the reductionistic, medically oriented diagnostic model inherent within the DSM system (Eriksen & Kress, 2005), counselors emphasize strength-based and developmentally, culturally and contextually sensitive approaches (Kress & Paylo, 2014). Despite the best efforts of many counselors to establish and promote a professional identity that is distinct from other mental health professions, market demands frequently dictate aspects of clinical practice (Eriksen & Kress, 2006). Counselors are licensure-eligible in all 50 states and regularly recognized on insurance panels; as such, there is an expectation that mental health counselors will use the DSM for third-party reimbursement (Kress & Paylo, 2014). Thus, counselors may find themselves working to balance unique professional identities with realities of a diagnostic system created by and for physicians who have a primary focus on pathology.

Despite its limitations, the DSM system is useful in a number of ways (APA, 2013; Dailey et al., 2014; Eriksen & Kress, 2005, 2006; Kress & Paylo, 2014). Primarily, it serves as a way of communicating about client problems and struggles. Assuming that all client-related information is considered, it offers a vehicle for reducing complex information into a manageable form (Kress & Paylo, 2014). Through the categorization of psychological symptoms into disorders, the DSM system provides a means for counselors to select evidence-based treatments that correspond to said disorder. Some clients may benefit from receiving a diagnosis as it may help them to normalize and understand their experiences, sometimes even helping them to reduce the shame and self-blame that often relate to symptoms (Eriksen & Kress, 2005). Finally, categorization and identification of disorders allows researchers to study the etiology and treatment of various mental disorders. Such a process lends itself well to the development of prevention, early intervention and effective treatment measures that have very real impacts on clients’ lives (APA, 2013). The DSM-5 (APA, 2013) also provides systematic information about diagnostic features, associated features supporting diagnosis, subtypes and/or specifiers, prevalence, development and course, risk and prognostic factors, diagnostic measures, functional consequences, culture-related diagnostic issues of each diagnosis; this information may be helpful to counselors who are struggling to fully understand their clients’ experiences.

An understanding of clients’ contextual experience is essential for conceptualizing client concerns and planning counseling strategies that are relevant to clients and have a strong probability of success (Kress & Paylo, 2014). In the past, those who engaged in multiaxial diagnosis were cued to at least consider biopsychosocial elements of clients’ concerns, including mental disorders, medical conditions, psychosocial and environmental stressors, and overall functioning. In the following section, we attend to the rise and fall of the multiaxial system.

Rise and Fall of the Multiaxial System 

The APA first introduced the multiaxial system in the DSM-III (1980). A radical departure from the previous version of the document, the DSM-III introduced categorical, symptom-based diagnosis (First, 2010). In attempts to ensure clinical utility of information reported, the authors suggested, but did not require, that clinicians report diagnostic information on five distinct Axes. This tradition continued with only modest changes in the DSM-IV (APA, 1994) and DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000).

The DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) multiaxial system involved documentation of diagnosis on five Axes. Axis I listed the primary or principal diagnoses that needed immediate attention; this included recording of clinical disorders as well as “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention” (e.g., life stressors, impairments in functioning; APA, 2000, p. 27). Axis II contained pervasive psychological issues such as personality disorders, personality traits and mental retardation (now intellectual disability disorder) that shaped responses to Axis I disorders. Axis III was intended to cue reporting of medical or neurological problems that were relevant to the individual’s current or past psychiatric problems. Axis IV required clinicians to indicate which of nine categories of psychosocial or environmental stressors influenced client conceptualization or care (e.g., recent divorce, death of partner, job loss). Finally, Axis V included the opportunity to provide a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) rating, a number between 0 and 100 intended to indicate overall level of distress or impairment.

Introduction of the multiaxial system was never without controversy or difficulty (Probst, 2014). Specific concerns included the degree to which Axes I and II were mutually exclusive and distinct (Røysamb et al., 2011), lack of clear boundaries between medical and mental health disorders (APA, 2013), inconsistent use of Axis IV for clinical and research purposes (Probst, 2014), and poor psychometric properties and clinical utility of the GAF (Aas, 2010; APA, 2013). Those most closely associated with APA noted concern that the multiaxial system was rarely used to its full potential and lacked clinical utility (APA, 2013; First, 2010). In 2004, APA first entertained a motion to explore elimination of the multiaxial system unless evidence was presented to suggest that the system enhanced patient care (First, 2010; Probst, 2014). Upon reviewing the literature, a 2005 committee recommended maintaining the system in the next iteration of the DSM and suggested that APA provide resources to support more widespread and consistent use (Probst, 2014). Nearly eight years later, the APA discontinued use of the multiaxial system, seemingly without public discussion or comment. Indeed, APA included just three paragraphs regarding this shift in the DSM-5, noting that “despite widespread use and its adoption by certain insurance and governmental agencies, the multiaxial system in DSM-IV was not required to make a mental disorder diagnosis” (2013, p. 16).

From Multiaxial to Nonaxial Assessment 

Clinicians who are accustomed to documenting diagnosis using a multiaxial system may wonder what DSM-5 assessment and diagnosis will look like. APA provided little concrete guidance, stating, “DSM-5 has moved to a nonaxial documentation of diagnosis (formerly Axes I, II and III), with separate notations for important psychosocial and contextual factors (formerly Axis IV) and disability (formerly Axis V)” (2013, p. 16). In the following sections, we explore evidence related to the shift and identify implications for counselors. 

Medical and Mental Health Conditions (Axes I, II and III)

Axes I, II and III have been eliminated in the DSM-5 (APA, 2013). Clinicians can simply list any disorders or conditions previously coded on these three Axes together and in order of clinical priority or focus (APA, 2013). Because many billing systems already used this system, this may not result in meaningful changes in terms of third-party billing.

This change removes the distinction of previous clinical disorders, personality disorders and intellectual disability disorder. Over time, clinicians have questioned whether Axis II personality disorders were qualitatively different from or any more stable than Axis I clinical disorders (Røysamb et al., 2011); one might also argue that certain developmental disorders (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, previously coded on Axis I) are just as longstanding and pervasive as intellectual disability disorder. Although there is some evidence that personality disorders are distinct from other clinical disorders, emerging evidence indicates that mental disorders do not factor cleanly into these classifications (Røysamb et al., 2011). It is possible that this subtle shift in coding may decrease the stigma often associated with personality disorders.

At the same time, this change in coding suggests that there is no differentiation between medical conditions and mental health disorders. Initially, APA released a definition in which it conceptualized mental disorders as “a behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual” and “reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction [emphasis added]” (APA, 2012). The resulting controversy and dialogue regarding lack of evidence for the claim led to a more balanced definition of mental disorder as involving “a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning” (APA, 2013, p. 20). Still, clinicians will find that the previous DSM-IV-TR phrase “general medical condition” has been replaced with “another medical condition” throughout the DSM-5 (e.g., APA, 2013, p. 161). Together, these reinforce an assumption that mental disorders are rooted in biological causes.

Some have suggested that an increased emphasis on mental disorders as organic implies that environmental factors are less important, and this could reduce the stigma that many people with mental disorders feel (Yang, Wonpat-Borja, Opler, & Corcoran, 2010). Certainly, the DSM-5 (APA, 2013) includes evidence that some mental disorders have considerable genetic and neurological links, even if scientists have yet to identify clear laboratory markers for any DSM diagnosis (First, 2010). However, others have suggested that this approach could reinforce the notion that those with mental disorders are biologically flawed as opposed to being complex beings who traverse many complicated contextual factors that impact their functioning (Ben-Zeev, Young, & Corrigan, 2010).

This shift toward viewing mental disorders from a neurobiologically based perspective may result in increased use of psychopharmacotherapy, or medication therapy (Frances, 2013). Although many clients may benefit from or require psychotropic medications to function effectively, others with mental disorders do not require this type of intervention. The use of medications can invite serious side effects and financial costs and preclude participation in psychosocial therapies demonstrated to be successful in long-term management of many mental disorders. Counselors should be mindful of these changes as they advocate at the community, state and national levels to ensure clients are educated about medication options, understand effectiveness of psychosocial and counseling treatments, and have access to appropriate care (Dailey et al., 2014).

Even if somewhat arbitrary, removing the distinction between mental disorders and medical disorders has the potential of creating confusion within the helping professions as to the nature of the treatment provided. Counselors may struggle regarding their role in recording medical diagnoses that they are not qualified to diagnose, and should collaborate with medical professionals to offer a holistic treatment conceptualization. Counselors would do well to consider the body of evidence regarding etiology of mental disorders and evaluate ways in which they may make unique contributions to client change. 

Psychosocial and Contextual Factors (Axis IV)

Clinicians previously listed psychosocial and contextual factors that affect clients and are relevant to conceptualization on Axis IV:

Originally conceived in the third edition of the diagnostic manual as a way to rate and rank the severity of particular stressors, axis IV was simplified for the fourth edition because of the difficulty in reliably quantifying the etiologic contribution of specific stressors to mental disorder; instead, clinicians were asked to simply note salient environmental factors. (Probst, 2014, p. 123)

This included notation regarding concerns in nine key areas: primary support group, social environment, education, occupation, housing, economic, access to health care, legal system/crime and other (APA, 2000).

Although information listed on Axis IV was intended to supplement diagnoses on the first two Axes, clients who attended counseling for only an Axis IV diagnosis were not eligible to receive mental health coverage from insurance companies (APA, 2013). In fact, Probst (2014) provided evidence that APA was intentional in ensuring that Axis IV was not codable and optional for billing purposes in efforts to preserve a degree of client confidentiality. As such, the new nonaxial coding system might actually increase accessibility of services depending upon insurance companies’ individual responses (APA, 2013). Beginning with the DSM-5, clinicians are advised to make a separate notation regarding contextual information, rather than including it in axial notation. However, the APA (2013) did not provide guidance regarding how or where to do so.

Although there is no longer an Axis for contextual factors, it is imperative that counselors maintain a holistic focus that aligns with our unique identity (Hansen, 2009). Along with a humanistic, strength- and competency-based perspective, counselors are sensitive to contextual and cultural considerations. Context refers to the interrelated conditions in which clients’ experiences occur, or any factors that surround their experience and illuminate their situation. As previously discussed, many traditional understandings of mental disorders highlight a pathology- and deficit-based perspective. When considering clients’ situations from a contextual perspective, counselors are responsible for incorporating attention to culture, gender and various developmental factors. “Eliminating axis IV does not eliminate the need to consider context—unless it can be shown that genetic and neurochemical factors alone account for the emergence, variation, and trajectory of mental and emotional disorder” (Probst, 2014, p. 129). Thus, counselors are challenged to find new ways to communicate information previously provided in the multiaxial system.

A firm understanding of clients’ context may lead to a more compassionate and holistic conceptualization of symptoms that could be better explained by contextual factors or environmental stressors (Eriksen & Kress, 2005; Kress & Paylo, 2014). In addition, epidemiological research suggests that psychosocial and environmental problems have moderate predictive value for understanding prognosis of major depression, suicidality, anxiety disorders and substance use disorders (Gilman et al., 2013). Additionally, contextually sensitive counselors define some mental disorders as being a person’s functional attempts to adapt to or cope with a dysfunctional context (Ivey & Ivey, 1999). It is important that any diagnostic discussions integrate a focus on these contextual factors.

Culture is an exceptionally important contextual consideration; through culture, clients define, express and interpret their beliefs, values, customs and gender role expectations (Bhugra & Kalra, 2010). Multicultural considerations should enlighten counselors’ diagnostic decisions and ultimately the treatment process. Although it still has room for development, the DSM-5 (2013) includes systematic information regarding gender and culture for each diagnostic category. In some cases, this is limited to a simple accounting of the prevalence of disorders within certain groups; in other cases, APA provided information regarding the diverse presentation or understanding of disorders. Further, the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics (2014) emphasizes that culture influences manifestation and understanding of problems; thus, counselors must consider culture throughout the counseling and treatment process.

Counselors can use formal or informal assessment to explore and understand clients’ context. The DSM-5 includes a Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) that counselors can use to help them understand clients’ context and its impact on their experiences and symptoms. The CFI may help counselors obtain the most clinically useful information, develop a relational connection with clients and ultimately make accurate diagnoses. The CFI is included in Section III of the DSM-5 and is a semi-structured interview composed of 16 questions that address both individual experience and social context. The text is divided into two columns, with counselor-generated questions on the right and instructions for application on the left. Two versions of the interview are available, one for the individual and one for an informant (e.g., a caregiver or a parent). The interviews also are available online at the APA’s (2014) DSM-5 website. The CFI also includes 12 Supplementary Modules, which provide additional questions used to assess domains of the 16-item CFI (e.g., cultural identity) as well as questions that counselors can ask during the cultural assessment of particular groups (e.g., children and adolescents, older adults, immigrants and refugees, and caregivers).

Should counselors elect not to use this more formal interview format to assess culture, there are multiple additional formal and informal cultural assessments as well as assessment guidelines that they can apply. For example, Castillo (1997) provided the following guidelines for culturally sensitive diagnosis: (a) assess the client’s cultural identity; (b) identify sources of cultural information relevant to the client; (c) assess the cultural meaning of a client’s problem and symptoms; (d) consider the impacts and effects of family, work and community on the complaint, including stigma and discrimination that may be associated with mental illness in the client’s culture; (e) assess for counselor personal biases; and (f) plan treatment collaboratively. Castillo’s guidelines offer a comprehensive assessment that may inform diagnostic practices.

The ACA’s Code of Ethics (2014) also indicates that counselors should recognize social prejudices that lead to misdiagnosis and overpathologizing of certain populations. It is impossible to understand clients’ unique situations and how to best help them if cultural considerations are not addressed. An understanding of clients’ culture in relation to diagnosis includes understanding cultural explanations of their experiences, their help-seeking behavior, the cultural framework of clients’ identity, cultural meanings of healthy functioning and cultural aspects that relate to the counselor–client relationship (Eriksen & Kress, 2005).

Counselors can address, consider and convey contextual factors through use of V Codes and Z Codes, and by including attention to contextual factors within the treatment record and conceptualization process (Kress, Paylo, Adamson, & Baltrinic, in press). In the DSM-5, the APA greatly expanded the list of codes to provide a means for documenting “other conditions and problems that may be a focus of clinical attention or that may otherwise affect the diagnosis, course, prognosis, or treatment of a patient’s mental disorder” (2013, p. 715). These are included alongside mental disorders and medical conditions on the nonaxial diagnosis discussed previously. Examples of V/Z Codes in the DSM-5 include the following: difficulties rooted in interpersonal issues (e.g., parent–child, sibling, partner distress), issues with abuse and neglect (e.g., partner abuse, child abuse, maltreatment), education or occupational difficulties, problems with housing and finances, difficulties within their social environment (e.g., phase of life, acculturation, target of discrimination), legal issues and other personal circumstances (e.g., obesity, nonadherence to treatment, borderline intellectual functioning). For example, a client who presents with major depressive disorder and reports a recent marital separation that has resulted in homelessness might receive a diagnosis of: 296.22 (F32.1) major depressive disorder, single episode, moderate; V61.03 (Z63.5) disruption of family by separation; and V60.0 (Z59.0) homelessness.

The move toward eliminating the multiaxial system emphasizes the idea that mental disorders do not occur apart from physical considerations and contextual struggles. In some ways, this change is consistent with a professional counseling philosophy. However, because there is no longer an infrastructure to cue consideration of contextual concerns, counselors must be ever more vigilant in identifying systematic ways to assess this information and integrate it into treatment plans in meaningful ways. How counselors convey this information may vary across providers and contribute to some confusion in communicating this information. Thus, the elimination of this axis may provide more flexibility at the expense of clear communication. 

Functioning and Disability (Axis V)

Initially developed as the Health-Sickness Rating Scale, the GAF was introduced as Axis V of the DSM-III and DSM-IV (Aas, 2011). The scale called for clinicians to “consider psychological, social, and occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental health–illness. Do not include impairment in functioning due to physical (or environmental) limitations” (APA, 2000, p. 34). Over time, this single number scale came to be used to assist in payers’ determinations of medical necessity for treatment and in determining eligibility for disability compensation (Kress & Paylo, 2014). The APA discontinued use of the GAF in the DSM-5, and now suggests that clinicians use the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) as a measure of disability.

The GAF scale was removed from the DSM-5 because of perceived lack of reliability and poor clinical utility (APA, 2013). In a comprehensive review of literature regarding the GAF, Aas (2010, 2011) concluded insufficient reliability in clinical settings, lack of precision, inability to detect change and limited evidence of concurrent and predictive ability. One additional concern is the way in which the GAF combined attention to symptom severity and impairment. Hilsenroth et al. (2000) noted concern regarding overlap between previous Axis I and II diagnoses and GAF ratings, as evidenced by the APA’s continuing work to develop alternate measures of functioning such as the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning and the Social and Occupational Assessment Scale. Empirical evidence suggested that GAF scores relate to client and clinician perceptions of concerns (Bacon, Collins, & Plake, 2002; Hilsenroth et al., 2000) more so than with social adjustment or interpersonal problems (Hilsenroth et al., 2000). Others have expressed concern regarding the limits of use of the GAF with children (Schorre & Vandvik, 2004).

Ro and Clark (2009) argued that the construct of functioning is complex and multidimensional in a way that simple GAF ratings regarding symptom severity and impairment cannot capture. They stated that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) conceptualization of functioning as a component of health, and disability as impairment in functioning, was particularly helpful. Perhaps more importantly, Ro and Clark presented empirical evidence that functioning includes four key factors: well-being (including satisfaction, quality of life and personal growth), basic functioning in life demands, self-mastery, and interpersonal and social relationships. Certainly, this conceptualization fits well with an understanding of counseling as a profession dedicated to maximizing human development (Hansen, 2009).

Historically, payers approved the nature and extent of services based upon GAF scores, diagnosis, severity of symptoms, danger to self or others, and disability across life contexts. With the elimination of the multiaxial system, counselors will no longer note a GAF score, and will not have an assessment of functioning built into the documentation process. In the absence of GAF scores, the APA (2013) suggested that practitioners use alternative ways to note and quantify distress and disability in functioning. The APA also suggested that practitioners continue to assess for suicide and homicide risk and use available standardized assessments to assess for symptom severity and disability (APA, 2013).

The APA (2013) recommended the WHODAS 2.0 as a preferred measure for use in assessing clients’ functioning. The WHODAS 2.0 can be used with clients who have a mental or physical condition or disorder. The WHODAS 2.0 is a free assessment instrument that is provided in the DSM-5, included on the WHO’s website and available through the DSM-5 online assessment measures website (www.psychiatry.org/dsm5). A manual (Ustün, Kostanjsek, Chatteriji, & Rehm, 2010) also is available free of charge.

The WHODAS 2.0 is a 36-item measure that assesses disability in people 18 years and older. It assesses for disability across six different domains: self-care, getting around, understanding and communicating, getting along with people, life activities (e.g., work and/or school activities), and participation in one’s community/society. When completing the form, clients rate the six areas based on their functioning over the past 30 days. Respondents are asked to respond as follows: none (1 point), mild (2 points), moderate (3 points), severe (4 points), and extreme or cannot do (5 points). Scoring of the assessment measure involves either simple scoring (i.e., the scores are added up based on the items endorsed with a maximum possible score suggesting extreme disability as 180) or complex scoring (i.e., different items are weighted differently). The computer program that provides complex scoring can be found on the WHO’s website. The WHODAS 2.0 can be used to track changes in the client’s level of disability over time. It can be administered at specified intervals that are most relevant to the clients’ and counselors’ needs.

The WHODAS 2.0 has been decades in development, involving more than 65,000 participants in hundreds of studies conducted across 19 countries. Ustün et al. (2010) summarized psychometric evidence in support of the WHODAS as follows:

The WHODAS 2.0 was found to have high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, α: 0.86), a stable factor structure; high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.98); good concurrent validity in patient classification when compared with other recognized disability measurement instruments; conformity to Rasch scaling properties across populations, and good responsiveness (i.e., sensitivity to change). Effect sizes ranged from 0.44 to 1.38 for different health interventions targeting various health conditions. (p. 815)

The authors concluded that the instrument is robust and easy to use. Likewise, the assessment tool was tested in the DSM-5 field trials, and researchers suggested that it was sound and reliable in routine clinical evaluations (APA, 2013). Despite strong validity evidence, Kulnik and Nikoletou (2014) cautioned that the instrument seems to connect most cleanly to medical or physical elements of disability, sometimes at the expense of social aspects of disability. Similarly, the WHODAS 2.0 only assesses one of four areas of functioning identified by Ro and Clark (2009). Although counselors may find the WHODAS 2.0 helpful for understanding some elements of disability, they may do well to consider additional holistic and comprehensive opportunities to assess client functioning and strengths.

Discussion 

Counselors should be aware that the act of rendering a DSM diagnosis is only one part of a comprehensive assessment. What one reports in terms of diagnosis is just a snapshot of the client. It does not capture the totality of one’s understanding regarding client strengths and limitations, nor does it indicate how counselors go about constructing that understanding. Any thorough assessment must take into account an understanding of all relevant factors. These include, but are not limited to, psychosocial factors such as psychological symptoms, family interactions, developmental factors, contextual factors, functional abilities and longitudinal-historical information. 

Given elimination of the multiaxial system, we advise counselors to be especially alert to listing V or Z Codes as part of the diagnosis in order to maintain consideration for client context in addition to biology and symptomology. As with prior editions of the DSM, counselors can still use V or Z Codes as sole diagnoses or to augment other diagnoses. Counselors also should document contextual information in their records so that this information can be conveyed to others as appropriate and used to support clients’ treatment.

There are a number of models that can be used to guide counselors’ diagnostic, case conceptualization and treatment practices. One such model is the I CAN START model (Kress & Paylo, 2014), which follows:

• I (Individual) represents the individual counselor and his or her unique experiences, competencies, limitations and other personal factors;
• C (Context) relates to an understanding of the client’s unique context (e.g., culture, gender, sexual orientation, developmental level, religion/spirituality);
• A (Assessment and Diagnosis) represents the assessment of the client and his or her symptoms and the accompanying DSM-5 diagnosis;
• N (Necessary level of care) refers to the client’s required level of care (e.g., residential treatment, hospitalization, outpatient treatment, individual counseling, family therapy);
• S (Strengths) signifies the client’s strengths, resources, and capacities, which can be used in treatment to help him or her overcome his or her problems and thrive;
• T (Treatment) represents the utilization of an evidence-based treatment in addressing the presenting disorders or problems;
• A (Aims and objectives of treatment) denotes the development of clearly defined problems, with measurable goals and clear behavioral counseling objectives;
• R (Research-based interventions) refers to the use of counseling techniques that are based on research; and
• T (Therapeutic support services) involves the use of support services that may complement counseling interventions and treatments (e.g., case management, medication management, nutrition counseling, a physical exercise program, parent training, yoga, meditation).

The loss of the multiaxial system in the DSM-5 provides both opportunities and challenges to counselors. The exact outcome of how the new process will be implemented is not yet known, and only time will show the extent of its impact. With the loss of the multiaxial system, some of the structure associated with its use is also lost. Moving forward, counselors should continue to develop methods for assessing and documenting aspects of the multiaxial system that have been eliminated. With this change comes an opportunity to reaffirm holistic and integrated views of clients and to provide leadership for other mental health professions and professionals regarding how to incorporate this perspective into diagnostic practices.

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The author reported no conflict of interest or funding contributions for the development of this manuscript.

References

Aas, I. H. M. (2010). Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): Properties and frontier of current knowledge. Annals of General Psychiatry, 9, 20. doi:10.1186/1744-859X-9-20

Aas, I. H. M. (2011). Guidelines for rating Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Annals of General Psychiatry, 10, 2. doi:10.1186/1744-859X-10-2

American Counseling Association. (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2012). Definition of a mental disorder. Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2014). Online assessment measures. Retrieved from http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm5/online-assessment-measures

Bacon, S. F., Collins, M. J., & Plake, E. V. (2002). Does the Global Assessment of Functioning assess functioning? Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24, 202–212.

Ben-Zeev, D., Young, M. A., & Corrigan, P. W. (2010). DSM-V and the stigma of mental illness. Journal of Mental Health, 19, 318–327. doi:10.3109/09638237.2010.492484

Bhugra, D., & Kalra, G. (2010). Cross cultural psychiatry: Context and issues. Journal of Pakistan Psychiatric Society, 7, 51–54.

Castillo, R. J. (1997). Culture & mental illness: A client-centered approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Dailey, S. F., Gill, C. S., Karl, S. L., & Barrio Minton, C. A. (2014). DSM-5 learning companion: A guide for counselors. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Eriksen, K., & Kress, V. E. (2005). Beyond the DSM story: Ethical quandaries, challenges, and best practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eriksen, K., & Kress, V. E. (2006). The DSM and professional counseling identity: Bridging the gap. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 28, 202–217.

First, M. B. (2010). Paradigm shifts and the development of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: Past experiences and future aspirations. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 692–700.

Frances, A. (2013). Essentials of psychiatric diagnosis: Responding to the challenge of DSM-5. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Gilman, S. E., Trinh, N.-H., Smoller, J. W., Fava, M., Murphy, J. M., & Breslau, J. (2013). Psychosocial stressors and the prognosis of major depression: A test of Axis IV. Psychological Medicine, 43, 303–316. doi:10.1017/S0033291712001080

Hansen, J. T. (2009). On displaced humanists: Counselor education and the meaning–reduction pendulum. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 48, 65–76. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1939.2009.tb00068.x

Hilsenroth, M. J., Ackerman, S. J., Blagys, M. D., Baumann, B. D., Baity, M. R., Smith, S. R., . . . Holdwick, D. J., Jr. (2000). Reliability and validity of DSM-IV axis V. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1858–1863. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1858

Ivey, A. E., & Ivey, M. B. (1999). Toward a developmental diagnostic and statistical manual: The vitality of a contextual framework. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 484–490. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02476.x

Jones, K. (2012). Dimensional and cross-cutting assessment in the DSM-5. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90, 481–487. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00059.x

Kress, V. E., Hoffman, R. M., & Eriksen, K. (2010). Ethical dimensions of diagnosing: Considerations for clinical mental health counselors. Counseling and Values, 55, 101–112. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2010.tb00024.x

Kress, V. E., & Paylo, M. J. (2014). Treating those with mental disorders: A comprehensive approach to case conceptualization and treatment. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson.

Kress, V. E., Paylo, M., Adamson, N., & Baltrinic, E. (in press). Teaching diagnosis in context: Guided imagery as a contextually sensitive pedagogical technique. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health.

Kulnik, S. T., & Nikoletou, D. (2014). WHODAS 2.0 in community rehabilitation: A qualitative investigation into the validity of a generic patient-reported measure of disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 36, 146–154. doi:10.3109/09638288.2013.782360

Kupfer, D. J., & Regier, D. A. (2011). Neuroscience, clinical evidence, and the future of psychiatric classification in DSM-5. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 672–674.

Miller, R., & Prosek, E. A. (2013). Trends and implications of proposed changes to the DSM-5 for vulnerable populations. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 359–366. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00106.x

Probst, B. (2014). The life and death of axis IV: Caught in the quest for a theory of mental disorder. Research on Social Work Practice, 24, 123–131. doi:10.1177/1049731513491326

Ro, E., & Clark, L. A. (2009). Psychosocial functioning in the context of diagnosis: Assessment and theoretical issues. Psychological Assessment, 21, 313–324. doi:10.1037/a0016611

Røysamb, E., Kendler, K. S., Tambs, K., Ørstavik, R. E., Neale, M. C., Aggen, S. H., . . . Reichborn-Kjennerud, T. (2011). The joint structure of DSM-IV Axis I and Axis II disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 198–209. doi:10.1037/a0021660

Schorre, B. E. H., & Vandvik, I. H. (2004). Global assessment of psychosocial functioning in child and adolescent psychiatry: A review of three unidimensional scales (CGAS, GAF, GAPD). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 13, 273–286. doi:10.1007/s00787-004-0390-2

Ustün, T. B., Kostanjsek, N., Chatterji, S., & Rehm, J. (Eds.). (2010). Measuring health and disability: Manual for WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) [Online version]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241547598_eng.pdf

Yang, L. H., Wonpat-Borja, A. J., Opler, M. G., & Corcoran, C. M. (2010). Potential stigma associated with inclusion of the psychosis risk syndrome in the DSM-V: An empirical question. Schizophrenia Research, 120, 42–48. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2010.03.012

Zalaquett, C. P., Fuerth, K. M., Stein, C., Ivey, A. E., & Ivey, M. B. (2008). Reframing the DSM-IV-TR from a multicultural/social justice perspective. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 364–371. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00521.x

Victoria Kress, NCC, is a Professor at Youngstown State University. Casey A. Barrio Minton, NCC, is an Associate Professor and Counseling Program Coordinator at the University of North Texas. Nicole A. Adamson, NCC, is an Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke.  Matthew J. Paylo is an Associate Professor at Youngstown State University. Verl T. Pope, NCC, is Chair and Professor of Counseling at Northern Kentucky University. Correspondence can be addressed to Victoria Kress, 1 University  Plaza, Youngstown, OH, 44555, victoriaekress@gmail.com.