The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Letter to the EditorFull Access

Drs. Christian Kieling, Renata Kieling, and Rohde Reply

To the Editor: On the behalf of all authors, we appreciate Dr. Frances' interest in our commentary documenting the rationale for changing the age at onset criterion for ADHD in DSM–5. Since the preparation of DSM–5, the implementation of an evidence-based approach to the development of diagnostic criteria has been an essential step toward strengthening the scientific bases of psychiatric nosology. Any modification in DSM is intended to be a consequence of comprehensive literature reviews, re-analyses of available data sets, and results from field trials (1).

Accordingly, our systematic review of the literature found no evidence for retaining the 7-year-old cutoff as a valid criterion for parsing individuals with and without ADHD. It is important to note that this recommendation derives from 31 studies (including the DSM–IV field trials) assessing a variety of outcomes in multiple settings across different countries (2). Prospective data of an existing data set corroborate these findings, revealing that extending the age at onset criterion to 12 years resulted in a negligible increase of 0.1% in the prevalence of ADHD (3). Results from upcoming field trials should finally assess the suitability and consequences of the proposed modification (4).

The lack of internal and external validity of the 7-year-old cutoff indicates that it impedes the accurate diagnosis of adolescents and adults for whom a comprehensive clinical assessment should identify other more valid criteria in order to reduce false positives (5). Indeed, from a statistical point of view, the inclusion of any additional arbitrary criterion leads to a reduction in the overall prevalence of a disorder. However, as highlighted by Wakefield and Spitzer (6), lower prevalence rates do not necessarily imply more valid diagnostic criteria. The shift from committee-recommended to evidence-based criteria in the development of DSM should be sustained to further increase the clinical validity of the manual.

Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

The authors' disclosures accompany the original commentary.

References

1 Widiger TA , Frances AJ , Pincus HA , Davis WW , First MB : Toward an empirical classification for the DSM-IV. J Abnorm Psychol 1991; 100:280–288 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

2 Kieling C , Kieling RR , Rohde LA , Frick PJ , Moffitt T , Nigg JT , Tannock R , Castellanos FX : The age at onset of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2010; 167:14–16 LinkGoogle Scholar

3 Polanczyk G , Caspi A , Houts R , Kollins SH , Rohde LA , Moffitt TE : Implications of extending the ADHD age-of-onset criterion to age 12: results from a prospectively studied birth cohort. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2010; 49:210–216 MedlineGoogle Scholar

4 American Psychiatric Association: DSM–5: The Future of Psychiatric Diagnosis. Arlington, Va, American Psychiatric Association, 2010. www.dsm5.org Google Scholar

5 Barkley RA : Against the status quo: revising the diagnostic criteria for ADHD. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2010; 49:205–207 MedlineGoogle Scholar

6 Wakefield JC , Spitzer RL : Lowered estimates: But of what? Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002; 59:129–130 Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar