Background

International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)

Uploaded 3/9/2011, approx. 3 minute read

My name is Sam Vaknin. I am the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited.

The International Classification of Diseases, known as ICD, is published by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. It included mental health disorders for the first time in 1948, in its sixth edition.

In 1959, following widespread criticism of its classicatory system and scheme, the World Health Organization commissioned a global survey of taxonomies of mental health problems, which was conducted by Stengel. The survey uncovered great disparities, substantial disagreements as to what constitutes mental illness and how it should be diagnosed.

In other words, there was disagreement regarding diagnostic criteria and another type of disagreement regarding differential diagnosis.

Yet it was not until 1968 that Stengel's recommendations were implemented in the eighth edition of the ICD.

The ICD-8 was descriptive and operational and did not commit itself to any theory, ideology or etiology. It did not discuss pathogenesis or psychological dynamics.

Still, the ICD-8 sported a confusing plethora of categories and allowed for rampant comorbidity, in other words, multiple diagnoses of multiple mental health disorders in the same patient.

The ICD-10, the current version, was revolutionary. It incorporated the outcomes of numerous collaborative studies and programs, both national and international, and included input from the American Psychiatric Association, the publisher of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the ICD's equivalent in North America.

Consequently, the ICD and the DSM are now broadly similar.

But as opposed to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the International Classification of Diseases provides two sets of diagnostic criteria for each disorder.

One list is useful to the diagnostician and allows for some latitude, and it is also useful to the practitioner's exercise of judgment.

The other set is far more precise and strict and is intended to be used by scholars and researchers in their studies.

Yet a third simplified classification is applicable to primary care settings, which contains only broad categories and wide brushstrokes.

So this third set of so-called criteria is dementia, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, without going into details.

The ICD-10 discusses organic substance use-related and stress-related disorders separately.

Chapter F, which deals with mental health disorders, is divided into 10 groups, and each group, in turn, is again divided into 100 subunits.

Thus, F2, for instance, is schizophrenia, F25 is schizoaffective disorder, and F25.1 is schizoaffective disorder of the depressive type.

You get the picture.

An international study carried out in 112 clinical centers in 39 countries demonstrated that the ICD-10 is not a reliable diagnostic tool as far as personality disorders go.

This is known as the Sartorius study, published in 1993.

These findings, however, were not replicated a year later in the USA and in Canada.

There's still hope for the ICD.

If you enjoyed this article, you might like the following:

Future of Personality Disorders: ICD Revolutionary, DSM Craven

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the revolution in understanding personality disorders, with the ICD-11 leading the way in revising and reforming the way personality disorders are regarded. The ICD-11 proposes a single general personality disorder severity rating and a five-domain dimensional trait model. However, the DSM-5 failed to make a similar shift due to special interest groups and is now considered behind the times compared to the ICD-11. The DSM-5 committee's lack of courage and intellectual integrity led to a messy and confusing manual that still relies on the outdated categorical model.


Abolish Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) in DSM V?

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) is criticized for its inadequate classificatory model and diagnostic criteria, which are vague and equivocal. The DSM-5 committee proposes to abolish some personality disorders and merge them into a single diagnostic category, using a dimensional approach that reflects reality better. The DSM-5 is expected to address the longitudinal course of disorders, genetic and biological underpinnings, and effectiveness of various treatments. The DSM-5 is expected to be a significant improvement over the DSM-4 in addressing personality disorders.


Body Language of the Personality Disordered

Patients with personality disorders have a body language specific to their personality disorder. The body language comprises an unequivocal series of subtle and not-so-subtle presenting signs. A patient's body language usually reflects the underlying mental health problem or pathology. In itself, body language cannot and should not be used as a diagnostic tool.


MMPI-2 Psychological Test: Controversial, but Hard to Fake

The MMPI-2 test booklet has 567 items, but a rough assessment can be made based on the first 370 queries. The items are arranged in scales, and the responses are compared to answers provided by control subjects. The nature of the deviation determines the patient's traits and tendencies, but not their diagnosis. The test results place the subject in a group of patients who reacted similarly, and the validity scales indicate whether the patient responded truthfully and accurately or was trying to manipulate the test. The clinical scales measure various mental health issues, and the interpretation of the MMPI-2 is now fully computerized.


Borderline Woman as Dissociative Secondary Psychopath

Borderline Personality Disorder and Psychopathy may not be as different as previously thought. Recent studies suggest that Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorders may be manifestations of secondary type psychopathy in women. Survivors of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) also exhibit psychopathic and narcissistic behaviors. Borderline Personality Disorder can be described as a subspecies of Dissociative Identity Disorder, with mood lability and emotional dysregulation being outward manifestations of changes in self-states.


Fearful-avoidant (Disorganized) “Attachment Style": Latest Faddish Nonsense

There has been a rise in nonsensical psychological constructs that lack validation, leading to the creation of terms like "fearful avoidant attachment," which are essentially rebranded versions of existing personality disorders, specifically borderline personality disorder. This trend reflects a broader issue in social sciences where a significant portion of research consists of recycled ideas, contributing to a replication crisis and the medicalization of normal behaviors. The expansion of diagnostic categories in psychology benefits various stakeholders, including practitioners and pharmaceutical companies, while pathologizing common human experiences. Ultimately, this undermines the credibility of the field, reducing it to pseudoscience and obscuring the true nature of mental health issues.


New Light on Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) in DSM-5-TR and ICD-11

Psychology is currently in turmoil with new diagnostic texts, definitions, and clinical insights. The DSM-5 text revision and the ICD-11 both offer new approaches to understanding borderline personality disorder (BPD). The distinction between complex trauma and BPD is blurry, and some scholars argue that various personality disorders, including narcissistic and borderline, should be considered post-traumatic conditions. The ICD-11 has moved towards a dimensional approach, focusing on aspects like identity, empathy, and antagonism, suggesting that all personality disorders may be part of a single underlying clinical entity.


From Borderline to Psychopath to Narcissist: Abuse of Language and Self States

Psychopathy, narcissism, and borderline personality disorders may represent different facets of a single underlying condition characterized by dissociation and fragmented self-states. These disorders often exhibit comorbidity, as individuals may shift between traits of narcissism, borderline, and psychopathy depending on stressors and emotional triggers. The communication patterns of these individuals, often marked by palindromic speech and manipulative language, serve to obscure their internal chaos and maintain their grandiosity or emotional needs. Ultimately, these personality disorders can be viewed as variations of malignant self-love, where the absence of a cohesive self leads to adaptive but dysfunctional behaviors in response to early trauma and unmet emotional needs. The interplay between these disorders suggests a continuum rather than distinct categories, with individuals transitioning fluidly between them based on their circumstances.


What We are Getting Wrong About Mental Illness: Diagnostic Manuals are BROKEN

Professor Sam Vaknin argues that the current diagnostic manuals for mental health disorders, such as the DSM and ICD, are flawed and should be restructured into three parts based on the three phases of life: childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. He believes that mental health disorders should be categorized as brain abnormalities, relational/societal disorders, and innate disorders. Vaknin also questions the validity of antisocial personality disorder as a mental illness, suggesting that it may be more of a tool for social control rather than a proper clinical entity.


Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Fortune Cookie or Reliable Test?

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a widely used and contested personality assessment test with various versions and millions of users worldwide. It is based on Jungian theory and classifies individuals into one of 16 personality types. While some studies have found the MBTI to be valid and useful, others criticize its dichotomous nature, lack of reliability, and deviation from Jung's original theory. Despite these criticisms, the MBTI remains popular and can provide insight, raise self-awareness, and help individuals understand their past experiences and relationships.

Transcripts Copyright © Sam Vaknin 2010-2024, under license to William DeGraaf
Website Copyright © William DeGraaf 2022-2024
Get it on Google Play
Privacy policy