Diagnostic classification of irritability and oppositionality in youth: a global field study comparing ICD‐11 with ICD‐10 and DSM‐5
Evans, Spencer C.; Roberts, Michael C.; Keeley, Jared W.; Rebello, Tahilia J.; Peña, Francisco; Lochman, John E.; Burke, Jeffrey D.; Fite, Paula J.; Ezpeleta, Lourdes; Matthys, Walter; Youngstrom, Eric A.; Matsumoto, Chihiro; Andrews, Howard F.; Elena Medina‐mora, María; Ayuso‐mateos, José L.; Khoury, Brigitte; Kulygina, Mayya; Robles, Rebeca; Sharan, Pratap; Zhao, Min; Reed, Geoffrey M.
(2021) Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, volume 62, issue 3, pp. 303 - 312
(Article)
Abstract
Background Severe irritability has become an important topic in child and adolescent mental health. Based on the available evidence and on public health considerations, WHO classified chronic irritability within oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in ICD-11, a solution markedly different from DSM-5’s (i.e. the new childhood mood diagnosis, disruptive mood dysregulation
... read more
disorder [DMDD]) and from ICD-10’s (i.e. ODD as one of several conduct disorders without attention to irritability). In this study, we tested the accuracy with which a global, multilingual, multidisciplinary sample of clinicians were able to use the ICD-11 classification of chronic irritability and oppositionality as compared to the ICD-10 and DSM-5 approaches. Methods Clinicians (N = 196) from 48 countries participated in an Internet-based field study in English, Spanish, or Japanese and were randomized to review and use one of the three diagnostic systems. Through experimental manipulation of validated clinical vignettes, we evaluated how well clinicians in each condition could identify chronic irritability versus nonirritable oppositionality, episodic bipolar disorder, dysthymic depression, and normative irritability. Results Compared to ICD-10 and DSM-5, ICD-11 led to more accurate identification of severe irritability and better differentiation from boundary presentations. Participants using DSM-5 largely failed to apply the DMDD diagnosis when it was appropriate, and they more often applied psychopathological diagnoses to developmentally normative irritability. Conclusions The formulation of irritability and oppositionality put forth in ICD-11 shows evidence of clinical utility, supporting accurate diagnosis. Global mental health clinicians can readily identify ODD both with and without chronic irritability.
show less
Download/Full Text
The full text of this publication is not available.
Keywords: International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), child and adolescent mental health, irritability, mood dysregulation, oppositional defiant disorder, Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental health
ISSN: 0021-9630
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Note: Funding Information: The authors were members of or consultants to the WHO International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders, the Field Studies Coordination Group for ICD-11 Mental and Behavioural Disorders, and/or Subgroup on Disruptive Behaviour and Dissocial Disorders of the Working Group on the Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders in Children and Adolescents. G.M.R. was a member of the WHO Secretariat. This article represents the opinions of its authors and except as specifically indicated does not represent the policies or positions of the World Health Organization. Funding Information: The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance in developing and testing the vignettes and/or study protocol: Alexandra Monzon, Andrea Garcia, Casey Pederson, Chelsey Hartley, Elena Garralda, Jacky Chan, Jennifer Blossom, Jessy Guler, Jonathan Poquiz, Jürgen Zielasek, Mackenzie Klaver, Salma Siddiqui, and Samantha Burns. For their assistance in translating study materials into Spanish and Japanese, the authors thank Liz Sosa, Miriam Feria, and Yoko Kamio. S.C.E. gratefully acknowledges support during the preparation of this manuscript from the National Institute of Mental Health and AIM for Mental Health. Lastly, the authors thank the clinician members of the Global Clinical Practice Network who contributed their valuable time and expertise as participants. The authors have declared that they have no competing or potential conflict of interests. Key points Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The World Health Organization
(Peer reviewed)