Cross cutting symptom measure child

Assessment Measures

American Psychiatric Association. (2013b). Assessment measures. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.AssessmentMeasures

A growing body of scientific evidence favors dimensional concepts in the diagnosis of mental disorders. The limitations of a categorical approach to diagnosis include the failure to find zones of rarity between diagnoses (i.e., delineation of mental disorders from one another by natural boundaries), the need for intermediate categories like schizoaffective disorder, high rates of comorbidity, frequent not-otherwise-specified (NOS) diagnoses, relative lack of utility in furthering the identification of unique antecedent validators for most mental disorders, and lack of treatment specificity for the various diagnostic categories.

From both clinical and research perspectives, there is a need for a more dimensional approach that can be combined with DSM’s set of categorical diagnoses. Such an approach incorporates variations of features within an individual (e.g., differential severity of individual symptoms both within and outside of a disorder’s diagnostic criteria as measured by intensity, duration, or number of symptoms, along with other features such as type and severity of disabilities) rather than relying on a simple yes-or-no approach. For diagnoses for which all symptoms are needed for a diagnosis (a monothetic criteria set), different severity levels of the constituent symptoms may be noted. If a threshold endorsement of multiple symptoms is needed, such as at least five of nine symptoms for major depressive disorder (a polythetic criteria set), both severity levels and different combinations of the criteria may identify more homogeneous diagnostic groups.

A dimensional approach depending primarily on an individual’s subjective reports of symptom experiences along with the clinician’s interpretation is consistent with current diagnostic practice. It is expected that as our understanding of basic disease mechanisms based on pathophysiology, neurocircuitry, gene-environment interactions, and laboratory tests increases, approaches that integrate both objective and subjective patient data will be developed to supplement and enhance the accuracy of the diagnostic process.

Cross-cutting symptom measures modeled on general medicine’s review of systems can serve as an approach for reviewing critical psychopathological domains. The general medical review of systems is crucial to detecting subtle changes in different organ systems that can facilitate diagnosis and treatment. A similar review of various mental functions can aid in a more comprehensive mental status assessment by drawing attention to symptoms that may not fit neatly into the diagnostic criteria suggested by the individual’s presenting symptoms, but may nonetheless be important to the individual’s care. The cross-cutting measures have two levels: Level 1 questions are a brief survey of 13 symptom domains for adult patients and 12 domains for child and adolescent patients. Level 2 questions provide a more in-depth assessment of certain domains. These measures were developed to be administered both at initial interview and over time to track the patient’s symptom status and response to treatment.

Severity measures are disorder-specific, corresponding closely to the criteria that constitute the disorder definition. They may be administered to individuals who have received a diagnosis or who have a clinically significant syndrome that falls short of meeting full criteria for a diagnosis. Some of the assessments are self-completed by the individual, while others require a clinician to complete. As with the cross-cutting symptom measures, these measures were developed to be administered both at initial interview and over time to track the severity of the individual’s disorder and response to treatment.