Aims

To support the free and open dissemination of research findings and information on alcoholism and alcohol-related problems. To encourage open access to peer-reviewed articles free for all to view.

For full versions of posted research articles readers are encouraged to email requests for "electronic reprints" (text file, PDF files, FAX copies) to the corresponding or lead author, who is highlighted in the posting.

___________________________________________

Monday, February 1, 2010

The Development of the Feighner Criteria: A Historical Perspective


This essay outlines the historical context in which the Feighner criteria emerged; reconstructs, as far as possible, the process by which the criteria were developed; and traces the influence the criteria had on subsequent developments in American psychiatry.

In the 1950s, when American psychiatry under psychoanalytic
dominance had little interest in psychiatric diagnosis, Edwin Gildea recruited to the Department of Psychiatry at Washington University faculty who advocated a medical model for psychiatry in which diagnosis had a central role.

In 1967, at the urging
of the then-resident John Feighner, a discussion group led by Eli Robins and including Sam Guze, George Winokur, Robert Woodruff, and Rod Muñoz began meeting with the initial goal of writing a review of prior key contributions to psychiatric diagnosis.

In their meetings over the next year, the task soon shifted to the development of a set of new diagnostic criteria. For three diagnoses, major depression, antisocial personality disorder, and alcoholism, the authors could identify the original criteria from which this group worked and the rationale for many of the changes they introduced.

Published in 1972, the Feighner criteria
were soon widely cited and used in research, and they formed the basis for the development of the Research Diagnostic Criteria, which in turn were central to the development of DSM-III.

The
team that developed the Feighner criteria made three key contributions to psychiatry: the systematic use of operationalized diagnostic criteria; the reintroduction of an emphasis on illness course and outcome; and an emphasis on the need, whenever possible, to base diagnostic criteria on empirical evidence.

Read Full Abstract

Request Reprint E-Mail: kendler@hsc.vcu.edu
_______________________________________